Chen Jiayun, Dai Jianrong, Nobah Ahmad, Bai Sen, Bi Nan, Lai Youqun, Li Minghui, Tian Yuan, Wang Xuetao, Fu Qi, Liang Bin, Zhang Tao, Xia Wenlong, Xu Yuan, Ren Wenting, Yan Xuena, Zhu Ji, Chen Deqi, Yang Jiming
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Radiation Physics Section, Biomedical Physics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Front Oncol. 2020 Dec 4;10:571644. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.571644. eCollection 2020.
The aim of this work is to introduce the 2019 International Planning Competition and to analyze its results.
A locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) case using the simultaneous integrated boost approach was selected. The plan quality was evaluated by using a ranking system in accordance with practice guidelines. Planners used their clinical Treatment Planning System (TPS) to generate the best possible plan along with a survey, designed to obtain medical physics aspects information. We investigated the quality of the large population of plans designed by worldwide planners using different planning and delivery systems. The correlations of plan quality with relevant planner characteristics (work experience, department scale, and competition experience) and with technological parameters (TPS and modality) were examined.
The number of the qualified plans was 287 with a wide range of scores (38.61-97.99). The scores showed statistically significant differences by the following factors: 1) department scale: the mean score (89.76 ± 8.36) for planners from the departments treating >2,000 patients annually was the highest of all; 2) competition experience: the mean score for the 107 planners with previous competition experience was 88.92 ± 9.59, statistically significantly from first-time participants ( = .001); 3) techniques: the mean scores for planners using VMAT (89.18 ± 6.43) and TOMO (90.62 ± 7.60) were higher than those using IMRT (82.28 ± 12.47), with statistical differences ( <.001). The plan scores were negligibly correlated with the planner's years of work experience or the type of TPS used. Regression analysis demonstrated that plan score was associated with dosimetric objectives that were difficult to achieve, which is generally consistent with a clinical practice evaluation. However, 51.2% of the planners abandoned the difficult component of total lung receiving a dose of 5 Gy in their plan design to achieve the optimal plan.
The 2019 international planning competition was carried out successfully, and its results were analyzed. Plan quality was not correlated with work experiences or the TPS used, but it was correlated with department scale, modality, and competition experience. These findings differed from those reported in previous studies.
本研究旨在介绍2019年国际放射治疗计划竞赛并分析其结果。
选取1例采用同步整合加量技术的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌（LA-NSCLC）病例。根据实践指南使用排名系统评估计划质量。计划制定者使用其临床治疗计划系统（TPS）生成尽可能最佳的计划，并进行一项旨在获取医学物理方面信息的调查。我们研究了全球计划制定者使用不同计划和放疗系统设计的大量计划的质量。考察了计划质量与计划制定者相关特征（工作经验、科室规模和竞赛经验）以及技术参数（TPS和放疗方式）之间的相关性。
合格计划数量为287个，分数范围较广（38.61 - 97.99）。分数在以下因素方面显示出统计学显著差异：1）科室规模：每年治疗超过2000例患者的科室的计划制定者的平均分数（89.76 ± 8.36）在所有科室中最高；2）竞赛经验：107名有过竞赛经验的计划制定者的平均分数为88.92 ± 9.59，与首次参与者相比有统计学显著差异（P = .001）；3）技术：使用容积调强弧形放疗（VMAT）（89.18 ± 6.43）和断层放疗（TOMO）（90.62 ± 7.60）的计划制定者的平均分数高于使用调强放疗（IMRT）（82.28 ± 12.47）的计划制定者，存在统计学差异（P <.001）。计划分数与计划制定者的工作年限或所使用的TPS类型的相关性可忽略不计。回归分析表明计划分数与难以实现的剂量学目标相关，这与临床实践评估总体一致。然而，51.2%的计划制定者在其计划设计中放弃了全肺接受5 Gy剂量这一困难部分以实现最优计划。
2019年国际放射治疗计划竞赛成功举办并对结果进行了分析。计划质量与工作经验或所使用的TPS无关，但与科室规模、放疗方式和竞赛经验相关。这些发现与以往研究报道的结果不同。
