Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVentura, Tiago-
dc.contributor.authorDias, Joana-
dc.contributor.authorKhouri, Leila-
dc.contributor.authorNetto, Eduardo-
dc.contributor.authorSoares, André-
dc.contributor.authorda Costa Ferreira, Brigida-
dc.contributor.authorRocha, Humberto-
dc.contributor.authorLopes, Maria do Carmo-
dc.description.abstractBackground: This work aims at clinically validating a graphical tool developed for treatment plan assessment, named SPIDERplan, by comparing the plan choices based on its scoring with the radiation oncologists (RO) clinical preferences. Methods: SPIDERplan validation was performed for nasopharynx pathology in two steps. In the first step, three ROs from three Portuguese radiotherapy departments were asked to blindly evaluate and rank the dose distributions of twenty pairs of treatment plans. For plan ranking, the best plan from each pair was selected. For plan evaluation, the qualitative classification of ‘Good’, ‘Admissible with minor deviations’ and ‘Not Admissible’ were assigned to each plan. In the second step, SPIDERplan was applied to the same twenty patient cases. The tool was configured for two sets of structures groups: the local clinical set and the groups of structures suggested in international guidelines for nasopharynx cancer. Group weights, quantifying the importance of each group and incorporated in SPIDERplan, were defined according to RO clinical preferences and determined automatically by applying a mixed linear programming model for implicit elicitation of preferences. Intra- and inter-rater ROs plan selection and evaluation were assessed using Brennan-Prediger kappa coefficient. Results: Two-thirds of the plans were qualitatively evaluated by the ROs as ‘Good’. Concerning intra- and inter-rater variabilities of plan selection, fair agreements were obtained for most of the ROs. For plan evaluation, substantial agreements were verified in most cases. The choice of the best plan made by SPIDERplan was identical for all sets of groups and, in most cases, agreed with RO plan selection. Differences between RO choice and SPIDERplan analysis only occurred in cases for which the score differences between the plans was very low. A score difference threshold of 0.005 was defined as the value below which two plans are considered of equivalent quality. Conclusion: Generally, SPIDERplan response successfully reproduced the ROs plan selection. SPIDERplan assessment performance can represent clinical preferences based either on manual or automatic group weight assignment. For nasopharynx cases, SPIDERplan was robust in terms of the definitions of structure groups, being able to support different configurations without losing
dc.publisherSpringer Naturept
dc.subjectClinical validation; Decision-making; Plan quality assessmentpt
dc.titleClinical validation of a graphical method for radiation therapy plan quality assessmentpt
degois.publication.titleRadiation Oncologypt
item.fulltextCom Texto completo-
item.grantfulltextopen- de Economia, Universidade de Coimbra- for Systems Engineering and Computers at Coimbra- for Systems Engineering and Computers at Coimbra- for Business and Economics Research-
Appears in Collections:I&D CeBER - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
2020_Radiation_Oncology.pdf909.82 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Oct 22, 2020


checked on Oct 22, 2020

Google ScholarTM




This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons