[P187] A crowd-knowledge-based analysis of DVHs in SBRT: First steps towards a national virtual audit. (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Savini, Alessandro; Fusella, M.; Esposito, M.; Carbonini, C.; Clemente, S.; Fiandra, C.; Garibaldi, C.; Giglioli, F.R.; Marino, C.; Moretti, E.; Russo, S.; Strigari, L.; Villaggi, E.; Stasi, M.; Mancosu, P.
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 52(2018)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 155
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.06.487
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Currently, most of the multicenter analyses on treatment planning rely on the extraction of selected data from the DVH of each plan. A grouped analysis can be biased due to different algorithms implemented in different TPSs used to generate the DVH. In this work we used a consistent method to present a preliminary analysis of multiple data coming from a national survey on stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) planning. Methods: A single spine case was shared among 36 radiation oncology centers. The dose prescription was 30 Gy in 3 fractions with specific constraints on target coverage and dose to nearby organs at risk. Data were collected in DICOM-RT format. A script was developed in R language using the RadOnc R-Package for recalculating the DVHs using the same algorithm. Specific DVH points (V30Gy, D90%, D2%) collected from the centers were compared with those recalculated with RadOnc. A grouped analysis of recalculated DVHs was performed therefore eliminating the bias due to different DVH calculation algorithms. Results: Differences between collected and recalculated DVHs were minimal, however in some cases deviations up to 1.5% were observed. The multiple-DVH analysis showed a notable variability on target dose level up to 150% likely related to constraints on target coverage and SBRT technique. This variability was caused mainly by different planning optimization strategies, rather than by the use of a specific treatment technology. Conclusions: The observed variability suggests that comparable standards in patient treatment among different centers can be obtained if a consistent high-level data sharing capability is granted. In the strive to harmonize the planning process, this analysis constitutes a first step toward the creation of a platform of crowd-knowledge-based planning guidelines. This platform could represent a high-quality benchmark for those centers that are willing to implement SBRT techniques.