Implementing an online radiotherapy quality assurance programme with supporting continuous medical education - report from the EMBRACE-II evaluation of cervix cancer IMRT contouring.
Cervical cancer
Delineation
EMBRACE-II
Education
Intensity modulated radiotherapy
Online
Quality assurance
Radiotherapy
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
18
08
2019
revised:
20
02
2020
accepted:
20
02
2020
pubmed:
3
4
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
3
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
EMBRACE-II is an international prospective study of IMRT and MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in locally advanced cervix cancer. An online radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) programme with minimal data transfer and supporting continuing medical education (CME) was implemented for IMRT contouring. Participant contours for six volumes-of-interest (VOIs) on one benchmark case were scored (2 = excellent, 1 = fair, 0 = revision required) against a consensus reference contour. For contours receiving a 0 or 1 score, additional qualitative comments were provided. The Jaccard conformity index (JCI) was retrospectively calculated. User interaction with CME content (pre-accreditation questionnaire, contouring atlas, practice cases, quizzes, internal target volume (ITV-T) guide) was analysed. 78 clinicians submitted contours for evaluation. 41% passed at the first attempt, 44% after one revision and 6% after two or more revisions. 9% did not re-submit after failing. The lowest mean scores were for the elective nodal CTV (CTV-E) (1.01/2) and ITV-T (1.06/2). 60 different errors across the six VOIs were identified; five potentially had high impact on loco-regional control. A JCI cut-off of 0.7 would have identified 87% contours that failed expert assessment, but also excluded 54% of passing contours. 39 clinicians responded to the pre-accreditation questionnaire - 36% anticipated difficulties with the ITV-T and 13% with the CTV-E. 35% clinicians contoured on the practice cases, 17% answered a quiz, 96% used the atlas and 38% the ITV-T guide. Expert evaluation with qualitative feedback improved contouring compliance. The JCI is not a reliable alternative to expert assessment. Moderate uptake of optional CME content limited evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
EMBRACE-II is an international prospective study of IMRT and MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in locally advanced cervix cancer. An online radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) programme with minimal data transfer and supporting continuing medical education (CME) was implemented for IMRT contouring.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participant contours for six volumes-of-interest (VOIs) on one benchmark case were scored (2 = excellent, 1 = fair, 0 = revision required) against a consensus reference contour. For contours receiving a 0 or 1 score, additional qualitative comments were provided. The Jaccard conformity index (JCI) was retrospectively calculated. User interaction with CME content (pre-accreditation questionnaire, contouring atlas, practice cases, quizzes, internal target volume (ITV-T) guide) was analysed.
RESULTS
78 clinicians submitted contours for evaluation. 41% passed at the first attempt, 44% after one revision and 6% after two or more revisions. 9% did not re-submit after failing. The lowest mean scores were for the elective nodal CTV (CTV-E) (1.01/2) and ITV-T (1.06/2). 60 different errors across the six VOIs were identified; five potentially had high impact on loco-regional control. A JCI cut-off of 0.7 would have identified 87% contours that failed expert assessment, but also excluded 54% of passing contours. 39 clinicians responded to the pre-accreditation questionnaire - 36% anticipated difficulties with the ITV-T and 13% with the CTV-E. 35% clinicians contoured on the practice cases, 17% answered a quiz, 96% used the atlas and 38% the ITV-T guide.
CONCLUSION
Expert evaluation with qualitative feedback improved contouring compliance. The JCI is not a reliable alternative to expert assessment. Moderate uptake of optional CME content limited evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32240907
pii: S0167-8140(20)30093-1
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.017
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22-29Informations de copyright
Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.