Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Matuszak, M. ♦ Feng, M. ♦ Moran, J. ♦ Xiao, Y. ♦ Mayo, C. ♦ Miller, R. ♦ Bosch, W. ♦ Popple, R. ♦ Marks, L. ♦ Wu, Q. ♦ Molineu, A. ♦ Martel, M. ♦ Yock, T. ♦ McNutt, T. ♦ Brown, N. ♦ Purdie, T. ♦ Yorke, E. ♦ Santanam, L. ♦ Gabriel, P. ♦ Michalski, J.
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ♦ CLINICAL TRIALS ♦ COMPUTER CODES ♦ DRUGS ♦ RADIATION DOSES ♦ RADIOTHERAPY ♦ STANDARDIZATION
Abstract Purpose: There is growing recognition of need for increased clarity and consistency in the nomenclatures used for body and organ structures, DVH metrics, toxicity, dose and volume units, etc. Standardization has multiple benefits; e.g. facilitating data collection for clinical trials, enabling the pooling of data between institutions, making transfers (i.e. hand-offs) between centers safer, and enabling vendors to define “default” settings. Towards this goal, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a task group (TG263) in July of 2014, operating under the Work Group on Clinical Trials to develop consensus statements. Guiding principles derived from the investigation and example nomenclatures will be presented for public feedback. Methods: We formed a multi-institutional and multi-vendor collaborative group of 39 physicists, physicians and others involved in clinical use and electronic transfer of information. Members include individuals from IROC, NRG, IHE-RO, DICOM WG-7, ASTRO and EORTC groups with overlapping interests to maximize the quality of the consensus and increase the likelihood of adoption. Surveys of group and NRG members were used to define current nomenclatures and requirements. Technical requirements of vendor systems and the proposed DICOM standards were examined. Results: There is a marked degree of inter and intra institutional variation in current approaches, resulting from inter-vendor differences in capabilities, clinic specific conceptualizations and inconsistencies. Using a consensus approach, the group defined optimal formats for the naming of targets and normal structures. A formal objective assessment of 13 existing clinically-used software packages show that all had capabilities to accommodate these recommended nomenclatures. Conclusions: A multi-stakeholder effort is making significant steps forward in developing a standard nomenclature that will work across platforms. Our current working list includes > 550 structures. Outreach efforts are ongoing to ensure broader participation in evaluating and testing the principles as they are developed by TG263.
ISSN 00942405
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2015-06-15
Publisher Place United States
Journal Medical Physics
Volume Number 42
Issue Number 6


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab