Dataset Information

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology.

ABSTRACT: Safety concerns may arise from a lack of standardization and ambiguity during the treatment planning and delivery process in radiation therapy. A standardized target and organ-at-risk naming convention in radiation therapy was developed by a task force comprised of several Radiation Oncology Societies. We present a nested-survey approach in a community setting to determine the methodology for radiation oncology departments to standardize their practice. Our Institution's continuous quality improvement (CQI) committee recognized that, due to growth from one to three centers, significant variability existed within plan parameters specific to patients' treatment. A multidiscipline, multiclinical site consortium was established to create a guideline for standard naming. Input was gathered using anonymous, electronic surveys from physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, chief therapists, and nurse managers. Surveys consisted of several primary areas of interest: anatomical sites, course naming, treatment plan naming, and treatment field naming. Additional concepts included capitalization, specification of laterality, course naming in the event of multiple sites being treated within the same course of treatment, primary versus boost planning, the use of bolus, revisions for plans, image-guidance field naming, forbidden characters, and standard units for commonly used physical quantities in radiation oncology practice. Guidelines for standard treatment naming were developed that could be readily adopted. This multidisciplinary study provides a clear, straightforward, and easily implemented protocol for the radiotherapy treatment process. Standard nomenclature facilitates the safe means of communication between team members in radiation oncology. The guidelines presented in this work serve as a model for radiation oncology clinics to standardize their practices.

SUBMITTER: Denton TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5874902 | biostudies-other | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology.

Denton Travis R TR Shields Lisa B E LB Hahl Michael M Maudlin Casey C Bassett Mark M Spalding Aaron C AC

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20151107 2

Safety concerns may arise from a lack of standardization and ambiguity during the treatment planning and delivery process in radiation therapy. A standardized target and organ-at-risk naming convention in radiation therapy was developed by a task force comprised of several Radiation Oncology Societies. We present a nested-survey approach in a community setting to determine the methodology for radiation oncology departments to standardize their practice. Our Institution's continuous quality impro ...[more]

PMID: 27074449

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:PurposeNRG/RTOG 0841 assessed the feasibility of a depression screening procedure in patients receiving radiation therapy (RT). As a secondary endpoint, availability and barriers to psychosocial care data were collected in hopes of providing recommendations for improved psychosocial care among patients receiving RT.Methods and materialsPatients starting RT were prospectively recruited and assessed with self-reported distress screening tools. Patients exceeding a validated cutoff and a sample of patients who screened negative received the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. During that SCID evaluation, patients completed a validated scale ranking interview on barriers to psychosocial care and interest in various psychosocial intervention modalities.ResultsA total of 463 patients from 35 community-based and 2 academic RT oncology sites were recruited. Of the 455 eligible, 75 (16%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. From this group, 78 patients completed the SCID; most were female (76%), white (88%), and had breast cancer (55%). Overall, the most common barriers to treatment, regardless of insurance, were costs (58%), daily responsibilities (44%), and physical health symptoms (38%). Patients from RT facilities without mental health services were significantly more likely to report difficulty with physical health problems, specifically serious illness and walking, compared with those treated at RT facilities with services (P = .013 and P = .039, respectively). Overall, there was interest in obtaining psychosocial services with face-to-face counseling at the cancer center and printed educational materials as the most commonly preferred interventions. Patients with difficult barriers to psychosocial interventions were significantly less interested in support away from the cancer center (P = .016), telephone and Internet counseling (P = .0062 &P = .011), and Internet support (P = .0048).ConclusionRadiation oncology patients are interested in obtaining psychosocial services but face barriers to access to mental health services including cost, debilitating symptoms, and time constraints that prevent adequate care.

Dataset Information

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology.

Publications

Guidelines for treatment naming in radiation oncology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets