Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Contouring Guidelines in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of Frequency, Methodology, and Delivery of Consensus Recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Clinical 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 materials

We 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.

Results

Overall, 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).

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Lin D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8262136 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) course designed to ensure radiation oncology residents were equipped with the knowledge and skillset to use radiation therapy techniques properly. The ARC Bootcamp was proven to be a useful educational intervention for improving learners' knowledge of anatomy and radiology and contouring ability. An online version of the course was created to increase accessibility to the ARC Bootcamp and provide a flexible, self-paced learning environment. This study aimed to describe the instructional design model used to create the online offering and report participants' motivation to enroll in the course and the online ARC Bootcamp's strengths and improvement areas.MethodsThe creation of the online course followed the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) framework. The course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules consisting of radiology and contouring lectures, anatomy labs, and integrated evaluations.ResultsThe online course launched on the platform Teachable in November 2019, and by January 2021, 140 participants had enrolled in the course, with 27 participants completing all course components. The course had broad geographic participation with learners from 19 different countries. Of the participants enrolled, 34% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (56%), followed by other programs (24%), such as medical physics residents or medical students. The primary motivator for participants to enroll was to improve their subject knowledge/skill (44%). The most common strength identified by participants was the course's quality (41%), and the most common improvement area was to incorporate more course content (41%).ConclusionsThe creation of the online ARC Bootcamp using the ADDIE framework was feasible. The course is accessible to diverse geographic regions and programs and provides a flexible learning environment; however, the course completion rate was low. Participants' feedback regarding their experiences will inform future offerings of the online course.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines.DesignEmpirical analysis.Data sourceGuidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021.Study selectionRecommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations.Data extractionPaired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness).ResultsThe study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach.ConclusionConsensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.