Multi-centre evaluation of variation in cumulative dose assessment in reirradiation scenarios

Authors

Nicholas Hardcastle, Peter Maccallum Cancer Centre
Eliana Vasquez Osorio, The University of Manchester
Andrew Jackson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Charles Mayo, University of Michigan Medical School
Anja Einebærholm Aarberg, Haukeland Universitetssjukehus
Myriam Ayadi, Le Centre Régional de Lutte Contre le Cancer Léon Bérard
Francesca Belosi, UniversitatsSpital Zurich
Cemile Ceylan, Istanbul Oncology Hospital
Angela Davey, The University of Manchester
Pauline Dupuis, Le Centre Régional de Lutte Contre le Cancer Léon Bérard
Julia Claire Handley, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust
Theresa Hemminger, Brainlab Sales GmbH
Lone Hoffmann, Aarhus Universitetshospital
Colin Kelly, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network
Chrysanthi Michailidou, German Oncology Center
Sarah Muscat, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust
Donna H. Murrell, Western University
Jaime Pérez-Alija, Hospital de La Santa Creu I Sant Pau
Catherine Palmer, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Lorenzo Placidi, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS
Marija Popovic, Centre Universitaire de Santé McGill
Heidi S. Rønde, Aarhus Universitetshospital
Adam Selby, South West Wales Cancer Centre
Theodora Skopidou, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Natasa Solomou, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Joep Stroom, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown
Christopher Thompson, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Nicholas S. West, Northern Centre for Cancer Care
Ali Zaila, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre

Publication Name

Radiotherapy and Oncology

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Safe reirradiation relies on assessment of cumulative doses to organs at risk (OARs) across multiple treatments. Different clinical pathways can result in inconsistent estimates. Here, we quantified the consistency of cumulative dose to OARs across multi-centre clinical pathways. Material and Methods: We provided DICOM planning CT, structures and doses for two reirradiation cases: head & neck (HN) and lung. Participants followed their standard pathway to assess the cumulative physical and EQD2 doses (with provided α/β values), and submitted DVH metrics and a description of their pathways. Participants could also submit physical dose distributions from Course 1 mapped onto the CT of Course 2 using their best available tools. To assess isolated impact of image registrations, a single observer accumulated each submitted spatially mapped physical dose for every participating centre. Results: Cumulative dose assessment was performed by 24 participants. Pathways included rigid (n = 15), or deformable (n = 5) image registration-based 3D dose summation, visual inspection of isodose line contours (n = 1), or summation of dose metrics extracted from each course (n = 3). Largest variations were observed in near-maximum cumulative doses (25.4 – 41.8 Gy for HN, 2.4 – 33.8 Gy for lung OARs), with lower variations in volume/dose metrics to large organs. A standardised process involving spatial mapping of the first course dose to the second course CT followed by summation improved consistency for most near-maximum dose metrics in both cases. Conclusion: Large variations highlight the uncertainty in reporting cumulative doses in reirradiation scenarios, with implications for outcome analysis and understanding of published doses. Using a standardised workflow potentially including spatially mapped doses improves consistency in determination of accumulated dose in reirradiation scenarios.

Open Access Status

This publication is not available as open access

Volume

194

Article Number

110184

Funding Number

L389AA

Funding Sponsor

Peter MacCallum Foundation

Share

COinS
 

Link to publisher version (DOI)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110184