Frontiers in oncology · 2026
Reliability of radiotherapist assessment for radiation induced skin-toxicity: investigational study.
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.
Doerwald-Munoz Lilian, Hayward Joseph, Alghannam Fahad, Fang Qiyin, Aref Mohamed Hisham, Abdlaty Ramy
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Enhancing the quality of radiotherapy for skin cancer requires systematic evaluation of radiation-induced skin toxicity, particularly acute toxicity, which affects ~90% of patients receiving ionizing radiation. This study assessed the reliability of a newly developed visual grading tool, the Clinician Erythema Assessment-Radiation Therapy (CEA-RT), designed to help radiation clinicians evaluate early radiation dermatitis.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CEA-RT tool utilizes a 5-point scale. Its reliability was evaluated by analyzing intra-rater and inter-rater agreement among clinicians, as well as its concordance with an expert reference standard against a reference standard. The assessment was conducted using digital images.
RESULTS: The study's results showed high intra-rater reliability, with 98% of scores falling within ±1 grade and consistent grading for regions of interest (ROI). However, inter-rater agreement was only fair, indicating variability among different clinicians. Concordance with an expert reference standard against a reference standard was moderate, with 25-30% of therapists achieving high concordance and over 50% showing moderate agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the CEA-RT scale as a reliable tool for individual use. However, study limitations included variable time gaps between sessions, recall bias, fatigue, and reliance on digital images. The results emphasize the need for additional training, in vivo validation, and inclusion of diverse skin types to improve overall accuracy and applicability.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CEA-RT tool utilizes a 5-point scale. Its reliability was evaluated by analyzing intra-rater and inter-rater agreement among clinicians, as well as its concordance with an expert reference standard against a reference standard. The assessment was conducted using digital images.
RESULTS: The study's results showed high intra-rater reliability, with 98% of scores falling within ±1 grade and consistent grading for regions of interest (ROI). However, inter-rater agreement was only fair, indicating variability among different clinicians. Concordance with an expert reference standard against a reference standard was moderate, with 25-30% of therapists achieving high concordance and over 50% showing moderate agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the CEA-RT scale as a reliable tool for individual use. However, study limitations included variable time gaps between sessions, recall bias, fatigue, and reliance on digital images. The results emphasize the need for additional training, in vivo validation, and inclusion of diverse skin types to improve overall accuracy and applicability.