Japanese journal of radiology · 2026
IMRT planning quality under a single full-time radiation oncologist supported by structured remote peer review and planning assistance versus the two-oncologist standard: the REMOTE-IMRT prospective, pair-matched, multi-institutional trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saito Masahide, Jingu Keiichi, Tohyama Naoki, Nemoto Hikaru, Kanai Takayuki, Kurooka Masahiko, Ota Seiichi, Umezawa Rei, Katsuta Yoshiyuki, Takeda Kazuya, Matsuda Masaki, Tamamoto Tetsuro, Shinohara Ryoji, Wakita Akihisa, Onishi Hiroshi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan quality under a proposed facility standard of one full-time radiation oncologist supported by structured remote or part-time peer review and mandatory planning assistance is comparable to Japan's current standard requiring two full-time radiation oncologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, pair-matched, prospective trial, 41 institutional pairs were enrolled and 36 completed per protocol. Within each pair, one institution had two full-time radiation oncologists (Group A) and the other had one full-time radiation oncologist (Group B), with mandated remote or part-time peer review and planning-assistant involvement at the single-oncologist site. Common cases (prostate cancer; nasopharyngeal carcinoma [NPC] with whole-neck [WNI] or local boost [LBI] irradiation) and consensus reference contours were provided. Primary endpoints were target delineation accuracy versus the reference contour (dice similarity coefficient, DSC) and plan quality (plan quality metric, PQM; 0-100).
RESULTS: Differences in DSC (Group B - A) were 0.00 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02) for prostate cancer, - 0.02 (- 0.06 to 0.02) for NPC-WNI, and - 0.04 (- 0.09 to 0.02) for NPC-LBI. PQM differences were 2.01 (- 2.05 to 6.07), - 3.51 (- 8.65 to 1.62), and - 2.52 (- 6.52 to 1.49), respectively. All differences fell within the pre-specified comparability margins, with no significant between-group differences.
CONCLUSION: Under these benchmark study conditions, target delineation accuracy and plan quality under a single full-time radiation oncologist supported by structured remote/part-time peer review and mandatory planning assistance were comparable to Japan's two-oncologist standard, supporting the feasibility of this structured model for widening IMRT access.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, pair-matched, prospective trial, 41 institutional pairs were enrolled and 36 completed per protocol. Within each pair, one institution had two full-time radiation oncologists (Group A) and the other had one full-time radiation oncologist (Group B), with mandated remote or part-time peer review and planning-assistant involvement at the single-oncologist site. Common cases (prostate cancer; nasopharyngeal carcinoma [NPC] with whole-neck [WNI] or local boost [LBI] irradiation) and consensus reference contours were provided. Primary endpoints were target delineation accuracy versus the reference contour (dice similarity coefficient, DSC) and plan quality (plan quality metric, PQM; 0-100).
RESULTS: Differences in DSC (Group B - A) were 0.00 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02) for prostate cancer, - 0.02 (- 0.06 to 0.02) for NPC-WNI, and - 0.04 (- 0.09 to 0.02) for NPC-LBI. PQM differences were 2.01 (- 2.05 to 6.07), - 3.51 (- 8.65 to 1.62), and - 2.52 (- 6.52 to 1.49), respectively. All differences fell within the pre-specified comparability margins, with no significant between-group differences.
CONCLUSION: Under these benchmark study conditions, target delineation accuracy and plan quality under a single full-time radiation oncologist supported by structured remote/part-time peer review and mandatory planning assistance were comparable to Japan's two-oncologist standard, supporting the feasibility of this structured model for widening IMRT access.