- Email: [email protected]
1298 poster STANDARDIZING NAMING CONVENTIONS IN RADIATION THERAPY
S 486
IMRT: C LINICAL IMPLEMENTATION Conclusions: It is possible to use non-rigid registration to extract anatomical symmetry information from CT scans and use it for segmentation of cancer volumes. The methods should be further investigated to discover their full potential. 1298 poster STANDARDIZING NAMING CONVENTIONS IN RADIATION THERAPY L. Santanam1 , S. Mutic1 , S. Brame1 , C. Hurkmans2 , C. van VlietVroegindewij3 , W. Straube4 , J. Galvin5 , P. Tripuraneni6 , J. Michalski1 , T. J. Fitzgerald7 , W. Bosch8 1 WASHINGTON U NIVERSITY M EDICAL C ENTER, Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Louis, USA 2 C ATHARINA Z IEKENHUIS, Department for Radiooncology and Radiotherapy, Eindhoven, Netherlands 3 T HE N ETHERLANDS C ANCER I NSTITUTE - A NTONI VAN L EEUWENHOEK H OSPITAL, Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, Netherlands 4 WASHINGTON U NIVERSITY M EDICAL C ENTER, St. Louis, USA 5 T HOMAS J EFFERSON U NIVERSITY, Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Safety, Philadelphia, USA 6 S CRIPPS C LINIC, La Jolla, CA, USA 7 Q UALITY A SSURANCE R EVIEW C ENTER, Administration , Providence, USA 8 WASHINGTON U NIVERSITY M EDICAL C ENTER, Radiation Oncology Section Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging, St. Louis, USA Purpose: The aim here is to report on the development of a standardized target and organ at risk naming convention for use in Radiation Therapy and to present the nomenclature for structure naming for inter-institutional data sharing, clinical trial repositories, integrated multi-institutional collaborative databases and quality control centers. This taxonomy should also enable improved plan benchmarking between clinical institutions and vendors and facilitation of automated treatment plan quality control. Materials: The Advanced Technology Consortium (ATC), Washington University in St.Louis, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Dutch Radiation Oncology Society (NVRO) and the Clinical Trials RT QA Harmonization Group collaborated in creating this new naming convention. The ATC structure naming schema, available on the ATC website and the ICRU guidelines have been used to create standardized nomenclature for target volumes (CTV, ITV, PTV etc.), organs at risk (OAR), and planning organ at risk volumes (PRVs) in radiation therapy. The nomenclature also includes rules for specifying laterality and margins for various structures. The naming rules distinguish tumor and nodal PTVs, with correspondence to their respective tumor/nodal CTVs. The naming convention provides rules for basic structure naming, as well as an option for more detailed names. There is also a correspondence between the base names and the detailed names which can be identified by structure mapping. Names of non-standard structures used mainly for plan optimization or evaluation (rings, islands of dose avoidance, islands where additional dose is needed (dose painting)) are identified separately. Results: In addition to its use in 12 ongoing RTOG advanced technology clinical trial protocols, a pilot version of this naming convention has been evaluated using 100 patient data sets with varying treatment sites. All structures in these data sets were satisfactorily identified using this nomenclature. Conclusions: Use of standardizing naming conventions is important to facilitate comparison of contouring and dosimetry across patient datasets. The guidelines presented here will facilitate international acceptance across a wide range of efforts, including ATC, RTOG, EORTC, ROI, NVRO, IHE-RO, and DICOM. The guidelines can improve inter-institutional data sharing and are easy to adopt by individual clinics and vendors. Consistent nomenclature should also facilitate the development of more automated or standardized clinical workflows.
IMRT: Clinical implementation 1299 poster A NATIONAL PHASE III TRIAL OF PELVIC LYMPH NODE (LN) IMRT IN PROSTATE CANCER (PIVOTAL): A COMPARISON OF LN OUTLINING METHODS V. Harris1 2 , C. South2 , C. Cruickshank3 , D. Dearnaley1 2 1 I NSTITUTE OF C ANCER R ESEARCH, Academic Radiotherapy, Sutton, United Kingdom 2 T HE R OYAL M ARSDEN NHS F OUNDATION T RUST, Sutton, United Kingdom 3 I NSTITUTE OF C ANCER R ESEARCH, Section of Clinical Trials, Sutton, United Kingdom Purpose: Since 2000 guidelines for defining pelvic lymph node (LN) clinical target volume (CTV) have been in use at The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) for use in prostate/ pelvic LN IMRT and were the basis of phase I and phase II safety data for this technique. However, these guidelines rely upon the
IMRT: C LINICAL IMPLEMENTATION Conclusions: It is possible to use non-rigid registration to extract anatomical symmetry information from CT scans and use it for segmentation of cancer volumes. The methods should be further investigated to discover their full potential. 1298 poster STANDARDIZING NAMING CONVENTIONS IN RADIATION THERAPY L. Santanam1 , S. Mutic1 , S. Brame1 , C. Hurkmans2 , C. van VlietVroegindewij3 , W. Straube4 , J. Galvin5 , P. Tripuraneni6 , J. Michalski1 , T. J. Fitzgerald7 , W. Bosch8 1 WASHINGTON U NIVERSITY M EDICAL C ENTER, Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Louis, USA 2 C ATHARINA Z IEKENHUIS, Department for Radiooncology and Radiotherapy, Eindhoven, Netherlands 3 T HE N ETHERLANDS C ANCER I NSTITUTE - A NTONI VAN L EEUWENHOEK H OSPITAL, Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, Netherlands 4 WASHINGTON U NIVERSITY M EDICAL C ENTER, St. Louis, USA 5 T HOMAS J EFFERSON U NIVERSITY, Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Safety, Philadelphia, USA 6 S CRIPPS C LINIC, La Jolla, CA, USA 7 Q UALITY A SSURANCE R EVIEW C ENTER, Administration , Providence, USA 8 WASHINGTON U NIVERSITY M EDICAL C ENTER, Radiation Oncology Section Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging, St. Louis, USA Purpose: The aim here is to report on the development of a standardized target and organ at risk naming convention for use in Radiation Therapy and to present the nomenclature for structure naming for inter-institutional data sharing, clinical trial repositories, integrated multi-institutional collaborative databases and quality control centers. This taxonomy should also enable improved plan benchmarking between clinical institutions and vendors and facilitation of automated treatment plan quality control. Materials: The Advanced Technology Consortium (ATC), Washington University in St.Louis, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Dutch Radiation Oncology Society (NVRO) and the Clinical Trials RT QA Harmonization Group collaborated in creating this new naming convention. The ATC structure naming schema, available on the ATC website and the ICRU guidelines have been used to create standardized nomenclature for target volumes (CTV, ITV, PTV etc.), organs at risk (OAR), and planning organ at risk volumes (PRVs) in radiation therapy. The nomenclature also includes rules for specifying laterality and margins for various structures. The naming rules distinguish tumor and nodal PTVs, with correspondence to their respective tumor/nodal CTVs. The naming convention provides rules for basic structure naming, as well as an option for more detailed names. There is also a correspondence between the base names and the detailed names which can be identified by structure mapping. Names of non-standard structures used mainly for plan optimization or evaluation (rings, islands of dose avoidance, islands where additional dose is needed (dose painting)) are identified separately. Results: In addition to its use in 12 ongoing RTOG advanced technology clinical trial protocols, a pilot version of this naming convention has been evaluated using 100 patient data sets with varying treatment sites. All structures in these data sets were satisfactorily identified using this nomenclature. Conclusions: Use of standardizing naming conventions is important to facilitate comparison of contouring and dosimetry across patient datasets. The guidelines presented here will facilitate international acceptance across a wide range of efforts, including ATC, RTOG, EORTC, ROI, NVRO, IHE-RO, and DICOM. The guidelines can improve inter-institutional data sharing and are easy to adopt by individual clinics and vendors. Consistent nomenclature should also facilitate the development of more automated or standardized clinical workflows.
IMRT: Clinical implementation 1299 poster A NATIONAL PHASE III TRIAL OF PELVIC LYMPH NODE (LN) IMRT IN PROSTATE CANCER (PIVOTAL): A COMPARISON OF LN OUTLINING METHODS V. Harris1 2 , C. South2 , C. Cruickshank3 , D. Dearnaley1 2 1 I NSTITUTE OF C ANCER R ESEARCH, Academic Radiotherapy, Sutton, United Kingdom 2 T HE R OYAL M ARSDEN NHS F OUNDATION T RUST, Sutton, United Kingdom 3 I NSTITUTE OF C ANCER R ESEARCH, Section of Clinical Trials, Sutton, United Kingdom Purpose: Since 2000 guidelines for defining pelvic lymph node (LN) clinical target volume (CTV) have been in use at The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) for use in prostate/ pelvic LN IMRT and were the basis of phase I and phase II safety data for this technique. However, these guidelines rely upon the