MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402909617 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.1164

International Harmonization of Technical Approaches to Kidney SABR – An International Radiosurgery Consortium of the Kidney (IROCK) Contouring Project

2024· article· en· W4402909617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anjan Dhar, Anand Swaminath, R.J.M. Correa, A. Mahadevan, A. Bruynzeel, Chad Tang, Fabio Cury, Mark T. Corkum, Muhammad Ali, Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Patrick Cheung, R. Hannan, Richard Hudes, S.C. Morgan, S.S. Lo, Vedang Murthy, Shankar Siva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreMcGill University Health CentreWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSABR volatility modelRadiosurgeryHarmonizationContouringMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceRadiologyBusinessRadiation therapyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is an emerging treatment for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), however variation in treatment protocols can exist between institutions. The goals of this study were to measure the variation in contouring RCC tumors for patients being treated with SABR and to develop consensus recommendations. An international panel of 16 radiation oncologists was created from the IROCK meeting during ASTRO 2023. Four patient cases were: Case 1, a renal tumor greater than 10 cm in size with an IVC tumor thrombus; Case 2, a central renal tumor abutting the renal hilum; Case 3, a local recurrence of RCC post-nephrectomy; and Case 4, a residual tumor post-radiofrequency ablation (RFA). For each Case, panelists were asked for radiation planning details and to contour the target volumes on representative axial images using a computer-based training tool. Comparison of panelist contours with the were performed using the Dice-Similarity Coefficient (DSC), the Mean Distance to Agreement (MDA) and the Hausdorff Distance (HD). The DSC measures the overlap between two contours, so a higher DSC suggests greater agreement. The MDA and HD represent the mean and maximum distances between points on the two contours, so higher MDA and HD represent lower agreement. Consensus target volumes were derived using the STAPLE algorithm and discussed amongst the panel. Altogether, the panel included radiation oncologists from Canada, the USA, Australia, the Netherlands, and India. All panelists had previously treated at least 10 patients with SABR for primary RCC. Table 1 shows the DSC, MDA and HD for each case. Using an ANOVA analysis, for all Cases, the DSC, MDA and HD were not statistically different between participants (p = 0.32, p = 0.24, and p = 0.23, respectively). On qualitative inspection of participant contours, Case 4 showed the most agreement, followed by Case 3, Case 2, and then Case 1. There was good agreement from our international expert panel on contouring renal tumors in all four Cases, with Case 4 having the greatest agreement, and Case 1 having the least agreement. Consensus recommendations based on this study may help improve the quality of SABR for RCC moving forward.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207