Organ at risk delineation for radiation therapy clinical trials: Global Harmonization Group consensus guidelines
Radiotherapy and Oncology, ISSN: 0167-8140, Vol: 150, Page: 30-39
2020
- 66Citations
- 190Usage
- 165Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations66
- Citation Indexes64
- 64
- CrossRef6
- Policy Citations2
- 2
- Usage190
- Downloads181
- Abstract Views9
- Captures165
- Readers165
- 165
Article Description
The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonization Group (GHG) is a collaborative group of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) Groups harmonizing and improving RTQA for multi-institutional clinical trials. The objective of the GHG OAR Working Group was to unify OAR contouring guidance across RTQA groups by compiling a single reference list of OARs in line with AAPM TG 263 and ASTRO, together with peer-reviewed, anatomically defined contouring guidance for integration into clinical trial protocols independent of the radiation therapy delivery technique. The GHG OAR Working Group comprised of 22 multi-professional members from 6 international RTQA Groups and affiliated organizations conducted the work in 3 stages: (1) Clinical trial documentation review and identification of structures of interest (2) Review of existing contouring guidance and survey of proposed OAR contouring guidance (3) Review of survey feedback with recommendations for contouring guidance with standardized OAR nomenclature. 157 clinical trials were examined; 222 OAR structures were identified. Duplicates, non-anatomical, non-specific, structures with more specific alternative nomenclature, and structures identified by one RTQA group were excluded leaving 58 structures of interest. 6 OAR descriptions were accepted with no amendments, 41 required minor amendments, 6 major amendments, 20 developed as a result of feedback, and 5 structures excluded in response to feedback. The final GHG consensus guidance includes 73 OARs with peer-reviewed descriptions (Appendix A). We provide OAR descriptions with standardized nomenclature for use in clinical trials. A more uniform dataset supports the delivery of clinically relevant and valid conclusions from clinical trials.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814020302942; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.038; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85086583675&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32504762; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167814020302942; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/oa_4/575; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&context=oa_4; https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/194662; http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-194662; https://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-194662; https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/194662/; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.038; https://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167-8140(20)30294-2/fulltext; http://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167814020302942/abstract; http://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167814020302942/fulltext; http://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167814020302942/pdf; https://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167-8140(20)30294-2/abstract; https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/194662/1/1-s2.0-S0167814020302942-main.pdf; https://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167-8140(20)30294-2/fulltext#.Xu-HAi_Q4hA.twitter
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know