PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

I Kalet

Publications and source records attributed to I Kalet.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Automated planning target volume generation: an evaluation pitting a computer-based tool against human experts.

PURPOSE: Software tools are seeing increased use in three-dimensional treatment planning. However, the development of these tools frequently omits careful evaluation before placing them in clinical use. This study demonstrates the application of a rigorous evaluation methodology using blinded peer review to an automated software tool that produces ICRU-50 planning target volumes (PTVs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven physicians from three different institutions involved in three-dimensional treatment planning participated in the evaluation. Four physicians drew partial PTVs on nine test cases, consisting of four nasopharynx and five lung primaries. Using the same information provided to the human experts, the computer tool generated PTVs for comparison. The remaining three physicians, designated evaluators, individually reviewed the PTVs for acceptability. To exclude bias, the evaluators were blinded to the source (human or computer) of the PTVs they reviewed. Their scorings of the PTVs were statistically examined to determine if the computer tool performed as well as the human experts. RESULTS: The computer tool was as successful as the human experts in generating PTVs. Failures were primarily attributable to insufficient margins around the clinical target volume and to encroachment upon critical structures. In a qualitative analysis, the human and computer experts displayed similar types and distributions of errors. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous evaluation of computer-based radiotherapy tools requires comparison to current practice and can reveal areas for improvement before the tool enters clinical practice.

Expert Systems↗
PubMed1997

Consistency of three-dimensional planning target volumes across physicians and institutions.

PURPOSE: Three-dimensional treatment planning depends upon exact and consistent delineation of target volumes. This study tested whether different physicians from different institutions vary significantly in their creation of planning target volumes (PTVs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight physicians from three different institutions created partial planning target volumes for nine clinical test cases. Their target volumes were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. Quantitative results were tested for significant differences. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis showed the physicians to vary in (a) the margin placed around the clinical target volume, (b) the margin used near critical structures, and (c) handling of concavities in the clinical target volume. Quantitative analysis showed these variations to result in statistically significant differences in the measured volume of the physicians' planning target volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Individual physicians and institutions differ significantly in their creation of planning target volumes, suggesting individual and institutional differences in the working definition for the PTV. Implications of this fact are discussed, along with areas where standardization can be improved.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1995

Three dimensional planning target volumes: a model and a software tool.

PURPOSE: Three dimensional (3D) target volumes are an essential component of conformal therapy because the goal is to shape the treatment volume to the target volume. The planning target volume (PTV) is defined by ICRU 50 as the clinical target volume (CTV) plus a margin to ensure that the CTV receives the prescribed dose. The margin must include all interfractional and intrafractional treatment variations. This paper describes a software tool that automatically generates 3D PTVs from CTVs for lung cancers and immobile head and neck cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Values for the interfractional and intrafractional treatment variations were determined by a literature review and by targeted interviews with physicians. The software tool is written in Common LISP and conforms to the specifications for shareable software of the Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Tools Collaborative Working Group. RESULTS: The tool is a rule-based expert system in which the inputs are the CTV contours, critical structure contours, and qualitative information about the specific patient. The output is PTV contours, which are a cylindrical expansion of the CTV. A model for creating PTVs from CTVs is embedded in the tool. The interfractional variation of setup uncertainty and the intrafractional variations of movement of the CTV (e.g., respiration) and patient motion are included in the model. Measured data for the component variations is consistent with modeling the components as independent samples from 3D Gaussian distributions. The components are combined using multivariate normal statistics to yield the cylindrical expansion factors. Rules are used to represent the values of the components for certain patient conditions (e.g., setup uncertainty for a head and neck patient immobilized in a mask). The tool uses a rule interpreter to combine qualitative information about a specific patient with rules representing the value of the components and to enter the appropriate component values for that patient into the cylindrical expansion formula. CONCLUSION: The portable software tool allows the rapid, consistent, and automatic generation of 3D PTVs from CTVs.

Head and Neck Neoplasms↗
PubMed1994

Portable software tools for 3D radiation therapy planning.

PURPOSE: Produce a collection of software tools (computer programs) that support three-dimensional (3D) radiation therapy planning. The tools are not a complete 3D planning system. Instead, they work with any 3D planning system that meets certain minimal specifications. The tools assist in deriving anatomic data from images, generating target volume contours, evaluating treatment plans, and verifying accurate treatment delivery. The tools are portable: they can run without source code changes in any computing environment that provides a library of functions and data definitions called the Foundation. The Foundation couples the portable tools to the (usually nonportable) file system and dose calculation associated with a particular 3D planning system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tools were written at three different (geographically separated) institutions. Software developers from all three sites specified the Foundation. The programmers' interface to the Foundation is portable, but a Foundation implementation need not be portable. Each group implemented a Foundation adapted to the (different) 3D planning system used at their site. RESULTS: All tools run at all three sites without source code changes. Each Foundation was implemented in a few person-months of programming effort. The program text and documentation for the tools have been placed in the public domain. CONCLUSIONS: It is practical and economical to produce portable radiotherapy treatment planning tools. Providers of 3D planning programs should offer Foundations for their systems, so they can be used with tools. Researchers considering new computer programs should write them as tools, so they can work with any 3D planning system.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗