Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 1420 "Best of" trial for early stage oropharyngeal, supraglottic and hypopharyngeal carcinoma: results of the benchmark case procedure.
Fiche du document
1 mai 2021
- doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01809-2
- issn: 1748-717X
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s13014-021-01809-2
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/33933118
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1748-717X
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_E2BC4937CC625
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , CC BY 4.0 , https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Sujets proches
Case Methods of analysis Analysis and chemistry Analytical methods Chemical analysis Analysis methods Analysis and examinationCiter ce document
J.J. Stelmes et al., « Quality assurance of radiotherapy in the ongoing EORTC 1420 "Best of" trial for early stage oropharyngeal, supraglottic and hypopharyngeal carcinoma: results of the benchmark case procedure. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1186/s13014-021-01809-2
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
The current phase III EORTC 1420 Best-of trial (NCT02984410) compares the swallowing function after transoral surgery versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (RT) in patients with early-stage carcinoma of the oropharynx, supraglottis and hypopharynx. We report the analysis of the Benchmark Case (BC) procedures before patient recruitment with special attention to dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS). Submitted RT volumes and plans from participating centers were analyzed and compared against the gold-standard expert delineations and dose distributions. Descriptive analysis of protocol deviations was conducted. Mean Sorensen-Dice similarity index (mDSI) and Hausdorff distance (mHD) were applied to evaluate the inter-observer variability (IOV). 65% (23/35) of the institutions needed more than one submission to achieve Quality assurance (RTQA) clearance. OAR volume delineations were the cause for rejection in 53% (40/76) of cases. IOV could be improved in 5 out of 12 OARs by more than 10 mm after resubmission (mHD). Despite this, final IOV for critical OARs in delineation remained significant among DARS by choosing an aleatory threshold of 0.7 (mDSI) and 15 mm (mHD). This is to our knowledge the largest BC analysis among Head and neck RTQA programs performed in the framework of a prospective trial. Benchmarking identified non-common OARs and target delineations errors as the main source of deviations and IOV could be reduced in a significant number of cases after this process. Due to the substantial resources involved with benchmarking, future benchmark analyses should assess fully the impact on patients' clinical outcome.