SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Utökad sökning

onr:"swepub:oai:gup.ub.gu.se/319370"
 

Sökning: onr:"swepub:oai:gup.ub.gu.se/319370" > Plan quality assess...

Plan quality assessment in clinical practice: Results of the 2020 ESTRO survey on plan complexity and robustness

Kaplan, L. P. (författare)
Placidi, L. (författare)
Bäck, Anna, 1972 (författare)
Gothenburg University,Göteborgs universitet,Institutionen för kliniska vetenskaper, Avdelningen för medicinsk strålningsvetenskap,Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Medical Radiation Sciences
visa fler...
Canters, R. (författare)
Hussein, M. (författare)
Vaniqui, A. (författare)
Fusella, M. (författare)
Piotrowski, T. (författare)
Hernandez, V. (författare)
Jornet, N. (författare)
Hansen, C. R. (författare)
Widesott, L. (författare)
visa färre...
 (creator_code:org_t)
Elsevier BV, 2022
2022
Engelska.
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140. ; 173, s. 254-261
Relaterad länk:
https://gup.ub.gu.se...
visa fler...
https://doi.org/10.1...
visa färre...
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
Abstract Ämnesord
Stäng  
  • Purpose: Plan complexity and robustness are two essential aspects of treatment plan quality but there is a great variability in their management in clinical practice. This study reports the results of the 2020 ESTRO survey on plan complexity and robustness to identify needs and guide future discussions and con-sensus.Methods: A survey was distributed online to ESTRO members. Plan complexity was defined as the mod-ulation of machine parameters and increased uncertainty in dose calculation and delivery. Robustness was defined as a dose distribution's sensitivity towards errors stemming from treatment uncertainties, patient setup, or anatomical changes.Results: A total of 126 radiotherapy centres from 33 countries participated, 95 of them (75%) from Europe and Central Asia. The majority controlled and evaluated plan complexity using monitor units (56 centres) and aperture shapes (38 centres). To control robustness, 98 (97% of question responses) photon and 5 (50%) proton centres used PTV margins for plan optimization while 75 (94%) and 5 (50%), respectively, used margins for plan evaluation. Seventeen (21%) photon and 8 (80%) proton centres used robust opti-misation, while 10 (13%) and 8 (80%), respectively, used robust evaluation. Primary uncertainties consid-ered were patient setup (photons and protons) and range calculation uncertainties (protons). Participants expressed the need for improved commercial tools to control and evaluate plan complexity and robust-ness.Conclusion: Clinical implementation of methods to control and evaluate plan complexity and robustness is very heterogeneous. Better tools are needed to manage complexity and robustness in treatment plan-ning systems. International guidelines may promote harmonization.(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Radiotherapy and Oncology 173 (2022) 254-261 This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Ämnesord

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Klinisk medicin -- Cancer och onkologi (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Clinical Medicine -- Cancer and Oncology (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

International survey
Plan quality
Plan complexity
Plan robustness
radiation-therapy
range uncertainties
radiotherapy
imrt
metrics
modulation
risk
optimization
coverage
margins
Oncology
Radiology
Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)
art (ämneskategori)

Hitta via bibliotek

Till lärosätets databas

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy