{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,3]],"date-time":"2026-04-03T10:41:49Z","timestamp":1775212909923,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,3,12]],"date-time":"2020-03-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1583971200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,3,12]],"date-time":"2020-03-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1583971200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100001871","name":"Funda\u00e7\u00e3o para a Ci\u00eancia e a Tecnologia","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","award":["UID\/Multi\/00308\/2019"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["UID\/Multi\/00308\/2019"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100001871","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Radiat Oncol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>This work aims at clinically validating a graphical tool developed for treatment plan assessment, named SPIDERplan, by comparing the plan choices based on its scoring with the radiation oncologists (RO) clinical preferences.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>SPIDERplan validation was performed for nasopharynx pathology in two steps. In the first step, three ROs from three Portuguese radiotherapy departments were asked to blindly evaluate and rank the dose distributions of twenty pairs of treatment plans. For plan ranking, the best plan from each pair was selected. For plan evaluation, the qualitative classification of \u2018Good\u2019, \u2018Admissible with minor deviations\u2019 and \u2018Not Admissible\u2019 were assigned to each plan. In the second step, SPIDERplan was applied to the same twenty patient cases. The tool was configured for two sets of structures groups: the local clinical set and the groups of structures suggested in international guidelines for nasopharynx cancer. Group weights, quantifying the importance of each group and incorporated in SPIDERplan, were defined according to RO clinical preferences and determined automatically by applying a mixed linear programming model for implicit elicitation of preferences. Intra- and inter-rater ROs plan selection and evaluation were assessed using Brennan-Prediger kappa coefficient.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Two-thirds of the plans were qualitatively evaluated by the ROs as \u2018Good\u2019. Concerning intra- and inter-rater variabilities of plan selection, fair agreements were obtained for most of the ROs. For plan evaluation, substantial agreements were verified in most cases. The choice of the best plan made by SPIDERplan was identical for all sets of groups and, in most cases, agreed with RO plan selection. Differences between RO choice and SPIDERplan analysis only occurred in cases for which the score differences between the plans was very low. A score difference threshold of 0.005 was defined as the value below which two plans are considered of equivalent quality.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Generally, SPIDERplan response successfully reproduced the ROs plan selection. SPIDERplan assessment performance can represent clinical preferences based either on manual or automatic group weight assignment. For nasopharynx cases, SPIDERplan was robust in terms of the definitions of structure groups, being able to support different configurations without losing accuracy.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s13014-020-01507-5","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,3,12]],"date-time":"2020-03-12T13:03:08Z","timestamp":1584018188000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["Clinical validation of a graphical method for radiation therapy plan quality assessment"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"15","author":[{"given":"Tiago","family":"Ventura","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Joana","family":"Dias","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Leila","family":"Khouri","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Eduardo","family":"Netto","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Andr\u00e9","family":"Soares","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Brigida","family":"da Costa Ferreira","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Humberto","family":"Rocha","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Maria do Carmo","family":"Lopes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,3,12]]},"reference":[{"key":"1507_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1093\/jicru\/10.1.Report83","volume":"10","author":"ICRU","year":"2010","unstructured":"ICRU. International commission on radiation units and measurements. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). ICRU report 83. J ICRU. 2010;10:1\u2013106. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jicru\/10.1.Report83.","journal-title":"J ICRU"},{"key":"1507_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"292","DOI":"10.1016\/j.radonc.2007.06.020","volume":"85","author":"C Thieke","year":"2007","unstructured":"Thieke C, Kufer K-H, Monz M, Scherrer A, Alonso F, Oelfke U, et al. A new concept for interactive radiotherapy planning with multicriteria optimization: first clinical evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2007;85:292\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.radonc.2007.06.020.","journal-title":"Radiother Oncol"},{"key":"1507_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"81","DOI":"10.1037\/h0043158","volume":"63","author":"GA Miller","year":"1956","unstructured":"Miller GA. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956;63:81\u201397.","journal-title":"Psychol Rev"},{"key":"1507_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Glatzer M, Panje CM, Sir\u00e9n C, Cihoric N, Putora PM. Decision making criteria in oncology. Oncology. 2018:1\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000492272.","DOI":"10.1159\/000492272"},{"key":"1507_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1409","DOI":"10.1016\/s0360-3016(02)04599-6","volume":"55","author":"NJ Lomax","year":"2003","unstructured":"Lomax NJ, Scheib SG. Quantifying the degree of conformity in radiosurgery treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:1409\u201319. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0360-3016(02)04599-6.","journal-title":"Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys"},{"issue":"Suppl 3","key":"1507_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"219","DOI":"10.3171\/jns.2000.93.supplement","volume":"93","author":"I Paddick","year":"2000","unstructured":"Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(Suppl 3):219\u201322. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/jns.2000.93.supplement.","journal-title":"J Neurosurg"},{"key":"1507_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"515","DOI":"10.1016\/s0360-3016(97)00732-3","volume":"40","author":"D Baltas","year":"1998","unstructured":"Baltas D, Kolotas C, Geramani K, Mould RF, Ioannidis G, Kekchidi M, et al. A conformal index (COIN) to evaluate implant quality and dose specification in brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40:515\u201324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0360-3016(97)00732-3.","journal-title":"Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys"},{"key":"1507_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5363","DOI":"10.1088\/0031-9155\/51\/20\/019","volume":"51","author":"J Menhel","year":"2006","unstructured":"Menhel J, Levin D, Alezra D, Symon Z, Pfeffer R. Assessing the quality of conformal treatment planning: a new tool for quantitative comparison. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:5363\u201375. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/0031-9155\/51\/20\/019.","journal-title":"Phys Med Biol"},{"key":"1507_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"183","DOI":"10.1118\/1.595707","volume":"12","author":"TE Schultheiss","year":"1985","unstructured":"Schultheiss TE, Orton CG. Models in radiotherapy: definition of decision criteria. Med Phys. 1985;12:183\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1118\/1.595707.","journal-title":"Med Phys"},{"key":"1507_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"321","DOI":"10.1016\/0360-3016(93)90213-F","volume":"26","author":"NL Jain","year":"1993","unstructured":"Jain NL, Kahn MG, Drzymala RE, Emami BE, Purdy JA. Objective evaluation of 3-d radiation treatment plans: a decision-analytic tool incorporating treatment preferences of radiation oncologists. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:321\u201333. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0360-3016(93)90213-F.","journal-title":"Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys"},{"key":"1507_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1120\/jacmp.v5i4.1981","volume":"5","author":"MM Miften","year":"2004","unstructured":"Miften MM, Das SK, Su M, Marks LB. A dose-volume-based tool for evaluating and ranking IMRT treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2004;5:1\u201314.","journal-title":"J Appl Clin Med Phys"},{"key":"1507_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"407","DOI":"10.1016\/j.radonc.2007.10.018","volume":"85","author":"LHT Leung","year":"2007","unstructured":"Leung LHT, Kan MWK, Cheng ACK, Wong WKH, Yau CC. A new dose-volume-based plan quality index for IMRT plan comparison. Radiother Oncol. 2007;85:407\u201317. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.radonc.2007.10.018.","journal-title":"Radiother Oncol"},{"key":"1507_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"296","DOI":"10.1016\/j.prro.2011.11.012","volume":"2","author":"BE Nelms","year":"2012","unstructured":"Nelms BE, Robinson G, Markham J, Velasco K, Boyd S, Narayan S, et al. Variation in external beam treatment plan quality: an inter-institutional study of planners and planning systems. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2:296\u2013305. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.prro.2011.11.012.","journal-title":"Pract Radiat Oncol"},{"key":"1507_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"263","DOI":"10.1186\/s13014-015-0569-3","volume":"10","author":"JCL Alfonso","year":"2015","unstructured":"Alfonso JCL, Herrero MA, Nunez L. A dose-volume histogram based decision-support system for dosimetric comparison of radiotherapy treatment plans. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:263. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13014-015-0569-3.","journal-title":"Radiat Oncol"},{"key":"1507_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"508","DOI":"10.1016\/j.rpor.2016.07.002","volume":"21","author":"T Ventura","year":"2016","unstructured":"Ventura T, Lopes MC, Ferreira BC, Khouri L. SPIDERplan: a tool to support decision-making in radiation therapy treatment plan assessment. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21:508\u201316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.rpor.2016.07.002.","journal-title":"Rep Pract Oncol Radiother"},{"key":"1507_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"210","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejmp.2019.07.012","volume":"64","author":"T Ventura","year":"2019","unstructured":"Ventura T, Rocha H, Ferreira BC, Dias J, Lopes MC. Comparison of two beam angular optimization algorithms guided by automated multicriterial IMRT. Phys Med. 2019;64:210\u201321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejmp.2019.07.012.","journal-title":"Phys Med"},{"key":"1507_CR17","unstructured":"Lee N, Garden A, Kim J, Mechalakos J, Pfister D, Ang K, Chan A, Zhang Q. A phase II study of concurrent chemotherapy using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) + bevacizumab (BV) for locally or regionally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. NRG Oncology - RTOG 0615. 2014."},{"key":"1507_CR18","unstructured":"Santiago MJ. M\u00e9todos de estima\u00e7\u00e3o de fiabilidade e concord\u00e2ncia entre avaliadores. Master Thesis. University of Aveiro. 2016;27\u201364."},{"key":"1507_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"159","DOI":"10.2307\/2529310","volume":"33","author":"JR Landis","year":"1977","unstructured":"Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159\u201374.","journal-title":"Biometrics"},{"key":"1507_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"337","DOI":"10.1007\/BF02291658","volume":"38","author":"V Srinivasan","year":"1973","unstructured":"Srinivasan V, Shocker AD. Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika. 1973;38:337\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF02291658.","journal-title":"Psychometrika"}],"container-title":["Radiation Oncology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s13014-020-01507-5.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s13014-020-01507-5\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s13014-020-01507-5.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,12]],"date-time":"2021-03-12T00:55:28Z","timestamp":1615510528000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ro-journal.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s13014-020-01507-5"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,3,12]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,12]]}},"alternative-id":["1507"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13014-020-01507-5","relation":{},"ISSN":["1748-717X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1748-717X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,3,12]]},"assertion":[{"value":"18 November 2019","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"27 February 2020","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"12 March 2020","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"Not applicable","order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no competing interests.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"64"}}