ArticlePractical radiation oncology
Dose Planning and Radiation Optimization for Thoracic Conventional, Twice Daily, and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: A Delphi Consensus From a National Survey of Practitioners.
Article in Practical radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe sent surveys to a large number of radiation oncologists with active thoracic cancer practices and applied the Delphi method over 3 rounds to generate consensus dose-volume histogram metrics. We used these results to create consensus-based organs-at-risk dose constraints and target goal templates for practical implementation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this institutional review board-approved study, data were collected using REDCap electronic data capture on a secure server. Radiation oncologists identified from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited departments' websites were asked to confirm their self-identification as thoracic radiation oncologists and nominate other respondents. All invitees were asked to complete 3 rounds of questions related to normal tissue constraints, target coverage metrics, prescribing practices, and other planning considerations. Preliminary consensus statements were presented in the second round of surveys for voting on a 5-point Likert scale. The third and last round of surveys presented the iterated consensus statements and target coverage metric statements for final voting. The high consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% agreement.
resultsEighty-three (42.8%) of 194 invitees completed at least 1 round of surveys. The group included a diversity of gender, geography, and clinical settings. Response rates were 83%, 57%, and 55%, respectively, for the 3 rounds. By the end of the process, 48 of 96 (50%) originally proposed normal tissue dose constraint statements were iterated to consensus, and 5 of 7 (71%) proposed target coverage metric statements achieved consensus. These were used to create crowdsourced treatment planning templates.
conclusionThis study achieved broad-based consensus-building on ideal and acceptable dose constraints for conventional, twice-daily, and stereotactic thoracic radiation therapy. Future directions could include extending this approach to other disease sites, studying the influence of widespread implementation on treatment planning, or facilitating the development of community consensus around emergent or controversial questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.