Search

Background: During the last decade, radiotherapy using MR Linac has gone from research to clinical implementation for different cancer locations. For head and neck cancer (HNC), target delineation based only on MR images is not yet standard, and the utilisation of MRI instead of PET/CT in radiotherapy planning is not well established. We aimed to analyse the inter-observer variation (IOV) in delineating GTV (gross tumour volume) on MR images only for patients with HNC. Material/methods: 32 HNC patients from two independent departments were included. Four clinical oncologists from Denmark and four radiation oncologists from Australia had independently contoured primary tumour GTVs (GTV-T) and nodal GTVs (GTV-N) on T2-weighted MR images obtained at the time of treatment planning. Observers were provided with sets of images, delineation guidelines and patient synopsis. Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) reference volumes were generated for each structure using all observer contours. The IOV was assessed using the DICE Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and mean absolute surface distance (MASD). Results: 32 GTV-Ts and 68 GTV-Ns were contoured per observer. The median MASD for GTV-Ts and GTV-Ns across all patients was 0.17 cm (range 0.08–0.39 cm) and 0.07 cm (range 0.04–0.33 cm), respectively. Median DSC relative to a STAPLE volume for GTV-Ts and GTV-Ns across all patients were 0.73 and 0.76, respectively. A significant correlation was seen between median DSCs and median volumes of GTV-Ts (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.76, p

Background: Treatment plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer are highly complex due to multiple dose prescription levels and numerous organs at risk (OARs) close to the target. The plan quality is inter-planner dependent since it is dependent on the skills and experience of the dosimetrist. This study presents a blinded prospective clinical comparison of automatic (AU) and manually (MA) generated H&N VMAT plans made for clinical use. Methods: MA and AU plans were generated for 30 consecutive patients in Pinnacle3 using the IMRT optimisation module and the new Autoplan module, respectively. The plan quality was blindedly compared by three senior oncologists and the best plan was selected for treatment of the patient. Planning time was measured as the active operator time used. The plan quality was analysed with DVH metrics and the dose delivery accuracy validated on the ArcCheck phantom. Results: For twenty-nine out of the thirty patients the AU plan was chosen for treatment. Target doses were more homogenous with the AU plans and the OAR doses were significantly reduced, between 0.5 and 6.5 Gy. The average operator time spent on creating a manual plan was 64 min which was halved by Autoplan. The AU plans were more modulated as illustrated by an increase in MUs, which might cause the slightly lower pass rate of 97.7% in the ArcCheck measurements. Conclusions: Target doses were similar between MA and AU plan, while AU plans spared all OAR considerably better than the MA plans.

Purpose: Effective leadership across all areas of radiation oncology (RO) is vital to fully realise the benefits of radiation therapy in cancer care. We report outcomes of a novel interdisciplinary leadership program designed for RO professionals under a global joint society initiative. Methods: The Foundations of Leadership in RO (FLiRO) program was designed for aspiring RO leaders. Initially delivered in a blended learning format, it was adapted to fully virtual in 2021. It comprised a webinar tutorial, on-line modules and homework followed by ‘live’ in-person/virtual workshops over an approximately 6-week period. Topics included personal awareness, effective teamwork, quality improvement skills, leading change and conflict management. An immediate post-program online survey was performed using Likert scales to measure self-reported educational value, interaction with others and the likely application of learning to practice. Open comments were invited. Results: 170 participants from 36 countries and 6 continents took part from 2018 to 2021 (99 doctors, 36 physicists, 32 radiation therapists/RTTs and 3 others). 141 (83%) participants responded to the post-program survey. Average weightings for responders’ views on whether pre-determined learning objectives were met ranged from 4.30 to 4.61 on a 5-point scale (1 = ‘not met at all’ and 5 = completely met). For the question addressing potential value of learning for application to their workplace, 124 of 130 (95%) of responders indicated that FLIRO would be ‘very useful’ or ‘extremely useful’. Conclusion: Initial evaluation of the FLiRO program supports its continuation and expansion with ongoing evolution based on emerging evidence around leadership education and participant feedback.