Dataset Information

Head and neck radiotherapy quality assurance conference for dedicated review of delineated targets and organs at risk: results of a prospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is complex, involving multiple target and organ at risk (OAR) structures delineated by the radiation oncologist. Site-agnostic peer review after RT plan completion is often inadequate for thorough review of these structures. In-depth review of RT contours is critical to maintain high-quality RT and optimal patient outcomes.

Materials and methods

In August 2020, the HN RT Quality Assurance Conference, a weekly teleconference that included at least one radiation oncology HN specialist, was activated at our institution. Targets and OARs were reviewed in detail prior to RT plan creation. A parallel implementation study recorded patient factors and outcomes of these reviews. A major change was any modification to the high-dose planning target volume (PTV) or the prescription dose/fractionation; a minor change was modification to the intermediate-dose PTV, low-dose PTV, or any OAR. We analysed the results of consecutive RT contour review in the first 20 months since its initiation.

Results

A total of 208 patients treated by 8 providers were reviewed: 86·5% from the primary tertiary care hospital and 13·5% from regional practices. A major change was recommended in 14·4% and implemented in 25 of 30 cases (83·3%). A minor change was recommended in 17·3% and implemented in 32 of 36 cases (88·9%). A survey of participants found that all (n = 11) strongly agreed or agreed that the conference was useful.

Conclusion

Dedicated review of RT targets/OARs with a HN subspecialist is associated with substantial rates of suggested and implemented modifications to the contours.

SUBMITTER: Farris JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10827337 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Head and neck radiotherapy quality assurance conference for dedicated review of delineated targets and organs at risk: results of a prospective study.

Farris J C JC Razavian N B NB Farris M K MK Ververs J D JD Frizzell B A BA Leyrer C M CM Allen L F LF Greven K M KM Hughes R T RT

Journal of radiotherapy in practice 20221104

<h4>Purpose</h4>Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is complex, involving multiple target and organ at risk (OAR) structures delineated by the radiation oncologist. Site-agnostic peer review after RT plan completion is often inadequate for thorough review of these structures. In-depth review of RT contours is critical to maintain high-quality RT and optimal patient outcomes.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>In August 2020, the HN RT Quality Assurance Conference, a weekly teleconference that include ...[more]

PMID: 38292763

Similar Datasets

Project description:Highlights: Sarcopenia is frequent in patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) or radiochemotherapy (RTCT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Sarcopenia is associated with poor disease-free survival and overall survival outcomes. Sarcopenia is not associated with a higher rate of treatment-related toxicity. Background: Sarcopenia occurs frequently with the diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to assess the impact of sarcopenia on survival among HNSCC patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) or radiochemotherapy (RTCT). Methods: Patients treated between 2014 and 2018 by RT or RTCT with curative intent were prospectively included (NCT02900963). Optimal nutritional support follow-up, including weekly consultation with a dietician and an oncologist and daily weight monitoring, was performed. Sarcopenia was determined by measuring the skeletal muscles at the L3 vertebra on the planning CT scan for radiotherapy. For each treatment group (RT or RTCT), we assessed the prognostic value of sarcopenia for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and its impact on treatment-related toxicity. Results: Two hundred forty-three HNSCC patients were included: 116 were treated by RT and 127 were treated by RTCT. Before radiotherapy, eight (3.3%) patients were considered malnourished according to albumin, whereas 88 (36.7%) patients were sarcopenic. Overall, sarcopenia was associated with OS and DFS in a multivariate analysis (HR 1.9 [1.1-3.25] and 1.7 [1.06-2.71], respectively). It was similar for patients treated with RT (HR 2.49 [1.26-4.9] for DFS and 2.24 [1.03-4.86] for OS), whereas for patients treated with RTCT sarcopenia was significantly associated with OS and DFS in univariate analysis only. Sarcopenia was not related to higher treatment-related toxicity. Conclusions: Pretherapeutic sarcopenia remains frequent and predicts OS and DFS for non-frail patients treated with curative intent and adequate nutritional support.

Project description:Background: Locally advanced head and neck cancer is managed either by combined surgery and (chemo) radiotherapy or definitive (chemo) radiotherapy, which may deteriorate nutritional status. Previous data have shown that intensive nutritional intervention by a dietician reduces radiation-induced adverse events including weight loss. Objective: To determine if on-demand nutritional counseling (ODC, control group) would be as efficacious as intensive nutritional counseling (INC, experimental group) in patients undergoing (chemo) radiotherapy. Methods: Fifty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive INC (n = 26) or ODC (n = 32). Outcome measures were nutritional status (PG-SGA), weight loss, handgrip strength (HGS), body composition, and survival. Results: Weight loss and impaired nutritional parameters during oncological treatment were seen equally in both groups (NS). Leaner patients at baseline maintained their weight, while overweight patients lost both weight and handgrip strength during treatment. Disease-free survival (DFS) (median = 43 months) was not affected by weight loss during treatment. Lower baseline HGS and malnutrition were associated with worse DFS (low vs. normal HGS: 15 vs. 42 months; p = 0.05 and malnutrition vs. good nutrition status: 17 vs. 42 months; p = 0.014, respectively). Survival according to low vs. normal HGS in the INC group was 4 vs. 44 months (p = 0.007) and in the ODC group 28 vs. 40 months (p = 0.944). According to malnutrition vs. good nutritional status in the INC group, DFS was 21 vs. 43 months (p = 0.025) and in the ODC group 15 vs. 41 months (p = 0.03). Conclusions: As for our primary endpoint, individualized on-demand nutritional counseling was as efficacious as intensive counseling in preventing deterioration of nutritional status and incidence of malnutrition during (chemo) radiotherapy. This should be verified with larger number of patients. Additional findings were that overweight patients had more severe weight loss, but not poorer survival. Low HGS and malnutrition at baseline were associated with poor survival. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02159508.

Project description:Larynx may alternatively serve as a target or organs at risk (OAR) in head and neck cancer (HNC) image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT). The objective of this study was to estimate IGRT parameters required for larynx positional error independent of isocentric alignment and suggest population‐based compensatory margins. Ten HNC patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) with daily CT on‐rails imaging were assessed. Seven landmark points were placed on each daily scan. Taking the most superior‐anterior point of the C5 vertebra as a reference isocenter for each scan, residual displacement vectors to the other six points were calculated postisocentric alignment. Subsequently, using the first scan as a reference, the magnitude of vector differences for all six points for all scans over the course of treatment was calculated. Residual systematic and random error and the necessary compensatory CTV‐to‐PTV and OAR‐to‐PRV margins were calculated, using both observational cohort data and a bootstrap‐resampled population estimator. The grand mean displacements for all anatomical points was 5.07 mm, with mean systematic error of 1.1 mm and mean random setup error of 2.63 mm, while bootstrapped POIs grand mean displacement was 5.09 mm, with mean systematic error of 1.23 mm and mean random setup error of 2.61 mm. Required margin for CTV‐PTV expansion was 4.6 mm for all cohort points, while the bootstrap estimator of the equivalent margin was 4.9 mm. The calculated OAR‐to‐PRV expansion for the observed residual setup error was 2.7 mm and bootstrap estimated expansion of 2.9 mm. We conclude that the interfractional larynx setup error is a significant source of RT setup/delivery error in HNC, both when the larynx is considered as a CTV or OAR. We estimate the need for a uniform expansion of 5 mm to compensate for setup error if the larynx is a target, or 3 mm if the larynx is an OAR, when using a nonlaryngeal bony isocenter.PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.Qr

Dataset Information

Head and neck radiotherapy quality assurance conference for dedicated review of delineated targets and organs at risk: results of a prospective study.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Head and neck radiotherapy quality assurance conference for dedicated review of delineated targets and organs at risk: results of a prospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets