Exploration of clinical preferences in treatment planning of radiotherapy for prostate cancer using Pareto fronts and clinical grading analysis.

Détails

Ressource 1Télécharger: Kiroudi_1-s2.0-S240563162030021X-main.pdf (742.93 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Document(s) secondaire(s)
Sous embargo indéterminé.
Accès restreint UNIL
Etat: Public
Version: de l'auteur⸱e
Licence: Non spécifiée
ID Serval
serval:BIB_D27CE2B93EFE
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Exploration of clinical preferences in treatment planning of radiotherapy for prostate cancer using Pareto fronts and clinical grading analysis.
Périodique
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Kyroudi A., Petersson K., Ozsahin E., Bourhis J., Bochud F., Moeckli R.
ISSN
2405-6316 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
2405-6316
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
04/2020
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
14
Pages
82-86
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
Radiotherapy treatment planning is a multi-criteria problem. Any optimization of the process produces a set of mathematically optimal solutions. These optimal plans are considered mathematically equal, but they differ in terms of the trade-offs involved. Since the various objectives are conflicting, the choice of the best plan for treatment is dependent on the preferences of the radiation oncologists or the medical physicists (decision makers).We defined a clinically relevant area on a prostate Pareto front which better represented clinical preferences and determined if there were differences among radiation oncologists and medical physicists.
Pareto fronts of five localized prostate cancer patients were used to analyze and visualize the trade-off between the rectum sparing and the PTV under-dosage. Clinical preferences were evaluated with Clinical Grading Analysis by asking nine radiation oncologists and ten medical physicists to rate pairs of plans presented side by side. A choice of the optimal plan on the Pareto front was made by all decision makers.
The plans in the central region of the Pareto front (1-4% PTV under-dosage) received the best evaluations. Radiation oncologists preferred the organ at risk (OAR) sparing region (2.5-4% PTV under-dosage) while medical physicists preferred better PTV coverage (1-2.5% PTV under-dosage). When the Pareto fronts were additionally presented to the decisions makers they systematically chose the plan in the trade-off region (0.5-1% PTV under-dosage).
We determined a specific region on the Pareto front preferred by the radiation oncologists and medical physicists and found a difference between them.
Mots-clé
CGA, Clinical decision making, Pareto fronts, Prostate, Trade-offs
Pubmed
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
26/01/2021 13:58
Dernière modification de la notice
15/05/2021 6:12
Données d'usage