Plan evaluation is a key step in the radiotherapy treatment workflow. Central to this step is the assessment of treatment plan quality. Hence, it is important to agree on what we mean by plan quality and to be fully aware of which parameters it depends on. We understand plan quality in radiotherapy as the clinical suitability of the delivered dose distribution that can be realistically expected from a treatment plan. Plan quality is commonly assessed by evaluating the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Evaluating the 3D dose distribution is not easy, however; it is hard to fully evaluate its spatial characteristics and we still lack the knowledge for personalising the prediction of the clinical outcome based on individual patient characteristics. This advocates for standardisation and systematic collection of clinical data and outcomes after radiotherapy. Additionally, the calculated dose distribution is not exactly the dose delivered to the patient due to uncertainties in the dose calculation and the treatment delivery, including variations in the patient set-up and anatomy. Consequently, plan quality also depends on the robustness and complexity of the treatment plan. We believe that future work and consensus on the best metrics for quality indices are required. Better tools are needed in TPSs for the evaluation of dose distributions, for the robust evaluation and optimisation of treatment plans, and for controlling and reporting plan complexity. Implementation of such tools and a better understanding of these concepts will facilitate the handling of these characteristics in clinical practice and be helpful to increase the overall quality of treatment plans in radiotherapy.
New complexity metrics are developed. The calculated scores correlate to the complexity of the created static MLC openings. The complexity of the MLC opening is dependent on the penumbra region relative to the area of the opening. The aperture-based complexity metrics that combined either the distances between the MLC leaves or the MLC opening circumference with the aperture area show the best correlation with the complexity of the static MLC openings.
Ninety-five patients transplanted for malignant lymphoma were retrospectively evaluated for regimen-related toxicity (RRT) and early posttransplant survival. Nineteen patients developed life-threatening (grade 3) or fatal (grade 4) RRT in one or more organs. Grade 3 or 4 RRT was more common in patients with advanced disease versus those transplanted earlier in their course (P = .008), and was more common in patients with advanced disease conditioned with cytarabine (Ara-C)/total body irradiation (TBI) versus those prepared with cyclophosphamide (CY)/TBI (P = .033). There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in autologous, histocompatibility locus antigen (HLA)-identical, or HLA-mismatched marrow recipients. Grade 3 or 4 RRT tended to be more common and 100-day survival worse in patients with a Karnofsky performance status of less than 90 (P = .063 and .0002, respectively). Patients receiving 20 Gy or more of mediastinal irradiation before coming to transplant had more idiopathic or cytomegalovirus (CMV) interstitial pneumonitis than those who received less than 20 Gy (30% v 9%, P = .027). The probability of survival decreased with the number of organs in which toxicity was observed (P = .0001). Severe or fatal toxicities directly related to the preparative regimen are a significant problem in the treatment of patients with advanced malignant lymphoma and can be reduced by carrying out transplantation earlier in the course of the disease.
Dogs receiving any type of treatment for central nervous system lymphoma lived longer than cases described in previous historical reports. Further studies are needed to elucidate the importance of specific treatment modalities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.