↓ Skip to main content

Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 990)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0385-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roel GJ Kierkels, Ruurd Visser, Hendrik P Bijl, Johannes A Langendijk, Aart A van ‘t Veld, Roel JHM Steenbakkers, Erik W Korevaar

Abstract

To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system. Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1-5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min. MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Other 10 17%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 35%
Physics and Astronomy 21 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#396,681
of 6,308,854 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#5
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,900
of 157,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#2
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,308,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 157,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.