Dataset Information

Method of computing direction-dependent margins for the development of consensus contouring guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical target volume (CTV) contouring guidelines are frequently developed through studies in which experts contour the CTV for a representative set of cases for a given treatment site and the consensus CTVs are analyzed to generate margin recommendations. Measures of interobserver variability are used to quantify agreement between experts. In cases where an isotropic margin is not appropriate, however, there is no standard method to compute margins in specified directions that represent possible routes of tumor spread. Moreover, interobserver variability metrics are often measures of volume overlap that do not account for the dependence of disagreement on direction. To aid in the development of consensus contouring guidelines, this study demonstrates a novel method of quantifying CTV margins and interobserver variability in clinician-specified directions.

Methods

The proposed algorithm was applied to 11 cases of non-spine bone metastases to compute the consensus CTV margin in each direction of intraosseous and extraosseous disease. The median over all cases for each route of spread yielded the recommended margins. The disagreement between experts on the CTV margin was quantified by computing the median of the coefficients of variation for intraosseous and extraosseous margins.

Results

The recommended intraosseous and extraosseous margins were 7.0 mm and 8.0 mm, respectively. The median coefficient of variation quantifying the margin disagreement between experts was 0.59 and 0.48 for intraosseous and extraosseous disease.

Conclusions

The proposed algorithm permits the generation of margin recommendations in relation to adjacent anatomy and quantifies interobserver variability in specified directions. This method can be applied to future consensus CTV contouring studies.

SUBMITTER: Lawrence LSP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8045331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeClinical trials have described variation in radiation therapy plan quality, of which contour delineation is a key component, and linked this to inferior patient outcomes. In response, consensus guidelines have been developed to standardize contour delineation. This investigation assesses trends in contouring guidelines and examines the methodologies used to generate and deliver recommendations.Methods and materialsWe conducted a literature search for contouring guidelines published after 1995. Of 11,124 citations, 332 were identified for full-text review to determine inclusion. We abstracted articles for the intent of the consensus process, key elements of the methodology, and mode of information delivery. A Fisher exact test was used to identify elements that differed among the guidelines generated for clinical trials and routine care.ResultsOverall, 142 guidelines were included, of which 16 (11%) were developed for a clinical trial. There was an increase in guideline publication over time (0 from 1995-1999 vs 65 from 2015- 2019; P = .03), particularly among recommendations for stereotactic radiation and brachytherapy. The most common disease sites were head and neck (24%), gastrointestinal (12%), and gynecologic (12%). Methods used to develop recommendations included literature review (50%) and image-based methods (45%). Panels included a median of 10 physicians (interquartile range, 7-16); 70% of panels represented multidisciplinary expertise. Guidelines developed for a clinical trial were more likely to include an image-based approach, with quantitative analysis of contours submitted by the panel members and to publish a full set of image-based recommendations (P < .005).ConclusionsThis review highlights an increase in consensus contouring recommendations over time. Guidelines focus on disease sites, such as head and neck, with evidence supporting a correlation between treatment planning and patient outcomes, although variation exists in the approach to the consensus process. Elements that may improve guideline acceptance (ie, image-based consensus contour analysis) and usability (ie, inclusion of a full image set) are more common in guidelines developed for clinical trials.

Project description:ImportanceThe 2014 publication of the Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO-ASTRO) Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery recommended a negative margin definition of no ink on tumor. Adoption of this guideline would represent a major change in surgical practice that could lower the rates of reoperation.ObjectiveTo assess changes in reoperation rates after publication of the SSO-ASTRO guideline.Data sourcesA systematic search of Embase, PREMEDLINE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for biomedical literature published from January 2014 to July 2019 was performed. This search was supplemented by web searches and manual searching of conference abstracts.Study selectionIncluded studies compared the reoperation rates in preguideline vs postguideline cohorts (actual change), retrospectively applied the SSO-ASTRO guideline to a preguideline cohort (projected change), or described the economic outcomes of the guideline.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics and reoperation rates were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled by random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were stratified by study setting (institutional or population) and preguideline accepted margins. The economic outcomes of the guideline were summarized narratively. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.Main outcomes and measuresOdds ratios for postguideline vs preguideline reoperation rates.ResultsFrom 1114 citations, 30 studies (with 599 016 participants) reported changes in reoperation rates. Studies included a median (range) of 487 (100-521 578) participants, and 20 studies were undertaken in the US, 6 in the UK, 3 in Canada, and 1 in Australia. Among 21 studies of actual changes, pooled ORs showed a statistically significant reduction in reoperation, with an OR lower in institution-based studies than in population-based studies (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.52-0.74] vs 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.80]; P = .04 for subgroup differences). Among 9 studies of projected changes, the pooled OR was lower for preguideline margin thresholds of 2 mm or more compared with 1 mm (OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.40-0.56] vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.91; P < .001 for subgroup differences). Projected changes were likely to overestimate actual changes. Six studies that estimated the postguideline economic outcome found the guideline to be potentially cost saving, with a median (range) saving of US $3540 ($1800-$25 650) per woman avoiding reoperation.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found a decrease in reoperation rates after the publication of the SSO-ASTRO guideline; this reduction was greater at an institutional level than a population level, the latter reflecting the differences in guideline adoption between centers. These early outcomes may be conservative estimates of longer-term implications.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Family and friends of a person developing a mental illness or in a mental health crisis can help the person until treatment is received or the crisis resolves. Guidelines for providing this 'mental health first aid' have been developed and disseminated in high-income countries. However, they may not be appropriate for use in China due to cultural and health care system differences. The aim of this study was to use the Delphi expert consensus method to develop culturally appropriate guidelines for a member of the public providing mental health first aid to someone with psychosis in mainland China. METHODS:A Chinese-language survey, comprising statements about how to provide mental health first aid to a person with psychosis, was developed. This was based on the endorsed items from the first round of the English-language questionnaire for high-income countries. These statements were rated by two expert panels from mainland China - a mental health professional panel (N?=?31) and a lived experience panel (N?=?41) - on how important they believed each statement was for a member of the public providing first aid to a person with psychosis in China. There were three Delphi rounds, with experts able to suggest additional items in Round 1. Items had to have at least 80% endorsement from both panels for inclusion. RESULTS:Out of 208 statements, 207 were endorsed for inclusion in the Chinese-language guidelines. Eight new statements were also included. Compared to the English-language guidelines, the importance of family involvement was emphasized in the development of the Chinese-language guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:While many of the actions in the English-language guidelines were endorsed by Chinese participants, a number of additional items point to the importance of developing culturally appropriate mental health first aid guidelines. These guidelines will form the basis for the development of Chinese Mental Health First Aid course aiming at training members of the public on how to provide first aid to someone with a mental health problem.