PURPOSE: A survey was created by NRG to assess a medical physicists percent full time equivalent (FTE) contribution to multi-institutional clinical trials. A 2012 American Society for Radiation Oncology report, Safety Is No Accident, quantified medical physics staffing contributions in FTE factors for clinical departments. No quantification of FTE effort associated with clinical trials was included. METHODS: To address this lack of information, the NRG Medical Physics Subcommittee decided to obtain manpower data from the medical physics community to quantify the amount of time medical physicists spent supporting clinical trials. A survey, consisting of 16 questions, was designed to obtain information regarding physicists time spent supporting clinical trials. The survey was distributed to medical physicists at 1996 radiation therapy institutions included on the membership rosters of the 5 National Clinical Trials Network clinical trial groups. RESULTS: Of the 451 institutions who responded, 50% (226) reported currently participating in radiation therapy trials. On average, the designated physicist at each institution spent 2.4 hours (standard deviation [SD], 5.5) per week supervising or interacting with clinical trial staff. On average, 1.2 hours (SD, 3.1), 1.8 hours (SD, 3.9), and 0.6 hours (SD, 1.1) per week were spent on trial patient simulations, treatment plan reviews, and maintaining a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine server, respectively. For all trial credentialing activities, physicists spent an average of 32 hours (SD, 57.2) yearly. Reading protocols and supporting dosimetrists, clinicians, and therapists took an average of 2.1 hours (SD, 3.4) per week. Physicists also attended clinical trial meetings, on average, 1.2 hours (SD, 1.9) per month. CONCLUSION: On average, physicist spent a nontrivial total of 9 hours per week (0.21 FTE) supporting an average of 10 active clinical trials. This time commitment indicates the complexity of radiation therapy clinical trials and should be taken into account when staffing radiation therapy institutions.

Purpose

The registration of multiple imaging studies to radiation therapy computed tomography simulation, including magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography-computed tomography, etc. is a widely used strategy in radiation oncology treatment planning, and these registrations have valuable roles in image guidance, dose composition/accumulation, and treatment delivery adaptation. The NRG Oncology Medical Physics subcommittee formed a working group to investigate feasible workflows for a self-study credentialing process of image registration commissioning.

Methods and materials

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 132 (TG132) report on the use of image registration and fusion algorithms in radiation therapy provides basic guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of the image registration algorithms and the overall clinical process. The report recommends a series of tests and the corresponding metrics that should be evaluated and reported during commissioning and routine quality assurance, as well as a set of recommendations for vendors. The NRG Oncology medical physics subcommittee working group found incompatibility of some digital phantoms with commercial systems. Thus, there is still a need to provide further recommendations in terms of compatible digital phantoms, clinical feasible workflow, and achievable thresholds, especially for future clinical trials involving deformable image registration algorithms. Nine institutions participated and evaluated 4 commonly used commercial imaging registration software and various versions in the field of radiation oncology.

Results and conclusions

The NRG Oncology Working Group on image registration commissioning herein provides recommendations on the use of digital phantom/data sets and analytical software access for institutions and clinics to perform their own self-study evaluation of commercial imaging systems that might be employed for coregistration in radiation therapy treatment planning and image guidance procedures. Evaluation metrics and their corresponding values were given as guidelines to establish practical tolerances. Vendor compliance for image registration commissioning was evaluated, and recommendations were given for future development.

PURPOSE: To quantify variations in target and normal structure contouring and evaluate dosimetric impact of these variations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To study whether providing an atlas can reduce potential variation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three NSCLC cases were distributed sequentially to multiple institutions for contouring and radiation therapy planning. No segmentation atlas was provided for the first 2 cases (Case 1 and Case 2). Contours were collected from submitted plans and consensus contour sets were generated. The volume variation among institution contours and the deviation of them from consensus contours were analyzed. The dose-volume histograms for individual institution plans were recalculated using consensus contours to quantify the dosimetric changes. An atlas containing targets and critical structures was constructed and was made available when the third case (Case 3) was distributed for planning. The contouring variability in the submitted plans of Case 3 was compared with that in first 2 cases. RESULTS: Planning target volume (PTV) showed large variation among institutions. The PTV coverage in institutions plans decreased dramatically when reevaluated using the consensus PTV contour. The PTV contouring consistency did not show improvement with atlas use in Case 3. For normal structures, lung contours presented very good agreement, while the brachial plexus showed the largest variation. The consistency of esophagus and heart contouring improved significantly (t test; P < .05) in Case 3. Major factors contributing to the contouring variation were identified through a survey questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of contouring variations in NSCLC cases was presented. Its impact on dosimetric parameters can be significant. The segmentation atlas improved the contour agreement for esophagus and heart, but not for the PTV in this study. Quality assurance of contouring is essential for a successful multi-institutional clinical trial.

Purpose

To quantify variations in target and normal structure contouring and evaluate dosimetric impact of these variations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To study whether providing an atlas can reduce potential variation.

Methods and materials

Three NSCLC cases were distributed sequentially to multiple institutions for contouring and radiation therapy planning. No segmentation atlas was provided for the first 2 cases (Case 1 and Case 2). Contours were collected from submitted plans and consensus contour sets were generated. The volume variation among institution contours and the deviation of them from consensus contours were analyzed. The dose-volume histograms for individual institution plans were recalculated using consensus contours to quantify the dosimetric changes. An atlas containing targets and critical structures was constructed and was made available when the third case (Case 3) was distributed for planning. The contouring variability in the submitted plans of Case 3 was compared with that in first 2 cases.

Results

Planning target volume (PTV) showed large variation among institutions. The PTV coverage in institutions' plans decreased dramatically when reevaluated using the consensus PTV contour. The PTV contouring consistency did not show improvement with atlas use in Case 3. For normal structures, lung contours presented very good agreement, while the brachial plexus showed the largest variation. The consistency of esophagus and heart contouring improved significantly (t test; P < .05) in Case 3. Major factors contributing to the contouring variation were identified through a survey questionnaire.

Conclusions

The amount of contouring variations in NSCLC cases was presented. Its impact on dosimetric parameters can be significant. The segmentation atlas improved the contour agreement for esophagus and heart, but not for the PTV in this study. Quality assurance of contouring is essential for a successful multi-institutional clinical trial.

Purpose

To assess stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT)/stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) practices by polling clinics participating in multi-institutional clinical trials.

Methods

The NRG Oncology Medical Physics Subcommittee distributed a survey consisting of 23 questions, which covered general technologies, policies, and procedures used in the Radiation Oncology field for the delivery of SRT/SBRT (9 questions), and site-specific questions for brain SRT, lung SBRT, and prostate SBRT (14 questions). Surveys were distributed to 1,996 radiotherapy institutions included on the membership rosters of the five National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups. Patient setup, motion management, target localization, prescriptions, and treatment delivery technique data were reported back by 568 institutions (28%).

Results

97.5% of respondents treat lung SBRT patients, 77.0% perform brain SRT, and 29.1% deliver prostate SBRT. 48.8% of clinics require a physicist present for every fraction of SBRT, 18.5% require a physicist present for the initial SBRT fraction only, and 14.9% require a physicist present for the entire first fraction, including set-up approval for all subsequent fractions. 55.3% require physician approval for all fractions, and 86.7% do not reposition without x-ray imaging. For brain SRT, most institutions (83.9%) use a planning target volume (PTV) margin of 2 mm or less. Lung SBRT PTV margins of 3 mm or more are used in 80.6% of clinics. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is the dominant delivery method in 62.8% of SRT treatments, 70.9% of lung SBRT, and 68.3% of prostate SBRT.

Conclusion

This report characterizes SRT/SBRT practices in radiotherapy clinics participating in clinical trials. Data made available here allows the radiotherapy community to compare their practice with that of other clinics, determine what is achievable, and assess areas for improvement.

The integration of adaptive radiation therapy (ART), or modifying the treatment plan during the treatment course, is becoming more widely available in clinical practice. ART offers strong potential for minimizing treatment-related toxicity while escalating or de-escalating target doses based on the dose to organs at risk. Yet, ART workflows add complexity into the radiation therapy planning and delivery process that may introduce additional uncertainties. This work sought to review presently available ART workflows and technological considerations such as image quality, deformable image registration, and dose accumulation. Quality assurance considerations for ART components and minimum recommendations are described. Personnel and workflow efficiency recommendations are provided, as is a summary of currently available clinical evidence supporting the implementation of ART. Finally, to guide future clinical trial protocols, an example ART physician directive and a physics template following standard NRG Oncology protocol is provided.

Radiomics is a fast-growing research area based on converting standard-of-care imaging into quantitative minable data and building subsequent predictive models to personalize treatment. Radiomics has been proposed as a study objective in clinical trial concepts and a potential biomarker for stratifying patients across interventional treatment arms. In recognizing the growing importance of radiomics in oncology, a group of medical physicists and clinicians from NRG Oncology reviewed the current status of the field and identified critical issues, providing a general assessment and early recommendations for incorporation in oncology studies.