Berry Sean L, Boczkowski Amanda, Ma Rongtao, Mechalakos James, Hunt Margie
Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016 Nov-Dec;6(6):442-449. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.04.005. Epub 2016 May 8.
We investigated the sources of variability in radiation therapy treatment plan output between planners within a single institution.
Forty treatment planners across 5 campuses of an institution created a plan on the same thoracic esophagus patient computed tomography scan and structure set. Plans were scored and ranked based on the planner's adherence to an ordered list of target dose coverage and normal tissue evaluation criteria. A runs test was used to identify whether any of the studied planner qualities influenced the ranking. Spearman rank correlation was used to investigate whether plan score correlated with years of experience or planned monitor units.
The distribution of scores, ranging from 80.24 to 135.89, was negatively skewed (mean, 128.7; median, 131.5). No statistically significant relationship between plan score and campus (P = .193), job title (P = .174), previous outside experience (P = .611), or number of gantry angles (P = .156) was discovered. No statistical correlation between plan score and monitor unit or years of experience was found.
Despite clear and established critical organ dose criteria and well-documented planning guidelines, planning variation still occurs, even among members of the same institution. Because plan consistency does not seem to significantly correlate with experience, career path, or campus, investigation into alternate methods beyond additional education and training to reduce this variation, such as knowledge-based planning or advanced optimization techniques, is necessary.
我们研究了单一机构内放疗治疗计划输出在计划者之间的变异性来源。
该机构5个校区的40名治疗计划者针对同一例胸段食管癌患者的计算机断层扫描和结构集制定计划。根据计划者对目标剂量覆盖和正常组织评估标准有序列表的遵守情况对计划进行评分和排名。采用游程检验来确定所研究的计划者素质是否会影响排名。使用斯皮尔曼等级相关性来研究计划得分是否与经验年限或计划的监测单位相关。
分数分布范围为80.24至135.89,呈负偏态(均值为128.7;中位数为131.5)。未发现计划得分与校区(P = 0.193)、职称(P = 0.174)、以往外部经验(P = 0.611)或机架角度数量(P = 0.156)之间存在统计学上的显著关系。未发现计划得分与监测单位或经验年限之间存在统计相关性。
尽管有明确且既定的关键器官剂量标准和记录完善的计划指南,但即使在同一机构成员中,计划差异仍然存在。由于计划一致性似乎与经验、职业路径或校区没有显著相关性,因此有必要研究除了额外教育和培训之外的其他方法来减少这种差异,例如基于知识的计划或先进的优化技术。