SBRT planning for spinal metastasis: indications from a large multicentric study.
SBRT-Planung bei Wirbelsäulenmetastasen: Indikationen aus einer großen Multizenterstudie.
Clinical Competence
Correlation of Data
Humans
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Quality Assurance, Health Care
/ methods
Radiation Injuries
/ prevention & control
Radiometry
Radiosurgery
/ methods
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Conformal
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Spinal Cord
/ radiation effects
Spinal Neoplasms
/ radiotherapy
Crowd knowledge-based optimization
Radiotherapy
Spine metastasis
Stereotactic body radiation therapy
Treatment planning
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
28
05
2018
accepted:
08
10
2018
pubmed:
26
10
2018
medline:
21
11
2019
entrez:
25
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The dosimetric variability in spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning was investigated in a large number of centres to identify crowd knowledge-based solutions. Two spinal cases were planned by 48 planners (38 centres). The required prescription dose (PD) was 3 × 10 Gy and the planning target volume (PTV) coverage request was: V In all, 12.5% of plans did not meet the protocol requirements. After re-optimization, 98% of plans fulfilled the constraints, showing the positive impact of knowledge sharing. Statistical analysis showed a significant correlation (p < 0.05) between the homogeneity index (HI) and PTV coverage for both cases, while the correlation between HI and spinal cord sparing was significant only for the single dorsal PTV case. Moreover, the multileaf collimator leaf thickness correlated with the spinal cord sparing. Planners using comparable delivery/planning system techniques produced different QI, highlighting the impact of the planner's skills in the optimization process. Both the technology and the planner's skills are fundamentally important in spine SBRT planning optimization. Knowledge sharing helped to follow the plan objectives.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The dosimetric variability in spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning was investigated in a large number of centres to identify crowd knowledge-based solutions.
METHODS
METHODS
Two spinal cases were planned by 48 planners (38 centres). The required prescription dose (PD) was 3 × 10 Gy and the planning target volume (PTV) coverage request was: V
RESULTS
RESULTS
In all, 12.5% of plans did not meet the protocol requirements. After re-optimization, 98% of plans fulfilled the constraints, showing the positive impact of knowledge sharing. Statistical analysis showed a significant correlation (p < 0.05) between the homogeneity index (HI) and PTV coverage for both cases, while the correlation between HI and spinal cord sparing was significant only for the single dorsal PTV case. Moreover, the multileaf collimator leaf thickness correlated with the spinal cord sparing. Planners using comparable delivery/planning system techniques produced different QI, highlighting the impact of the planner's skills in the optimization process.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both the technology and the planner's skills are fundamentally important in spine SBRT planning optimization. Knowledge sharing helped to follow the plan objectives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30353349
doi: 10.1007/s00066-018-1383-2
pii: 10.1007/s00066-018-1383-2
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
226-235Références
Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
pubmed: 20879569
Radiat Oncol. 2011 Dec 15;6:172
pubmed: 22172095
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2012 Jan;22(1):62-9
pubmed: 22177879
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):e803-9
pubmed: 22330988
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):e597-605
pubmed: 22608954
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Sep 1;87(1):176-81
pubmed: 23623460
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Sep 06;14(5):162-72
pubmed: 24036869
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Apr 1;88(5):1175-9
pubmed: 24529714
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012 Oct-Dec;2(4):296-305
pubmed: 24674168
Strahlenther Onkol. 2015 Jul;191(7):573-81
pubmed: 25747263
Phys Med. 2016 Jan;32(1):277-83
pubmed: 26498378
Med Dosim. 2016 Summer;41(2):105-12
pubmed: 26831753
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Jan 08;17(1):272-282
pubmed: 26894364
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 01;11(3):e0149273
pubmed: 26930204
Phys Med. 2016 Apr;32(4):600-6
pubmed: 27061871
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 May 08;17(3):313-330
pubmed: 27167291
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan 31;12(1):33
pubmed: 28143623
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Apr;123(1):57-62
pubmed: 28202228
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Mar - Apr;7(2):e145-e155
pubmed: 28274405
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Jan;18(1):164-169
pubmed: 28291927
Phys Med. 2017 Dec;44:163-170
pubmed: 28566240
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 Oct;193(10):780-790
pubmed: 28567503
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Nov - Dec;7(6):e579-e580
pubmed: 28666903
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 Dec;193(12):1066-1067
pubmed: 28905198
Strahlenther Onkol. 2018 Sep;194(9):815-823
pubmed: 29802434
Strahlenther Onkol. 2018 Sep;194(9):843-854
pubmed: 29802435