ABSTRACT
Purpose/Objective(s) Accurate target delineation/contouring is essential for radiation treatment planning and radiotherapy efficacy. As a result, improving the quality of target delineation is an important goal in the education of radiation oncology residents. The purpose of this study was to track the concordance of radiation oncology residents’ contours with faculty physicians’ contours over the course of one year to assess for patterns.
Materials/Methods Residents in PGY levels of 2-4 were asked to contour target volumes which were compared to the finalized, faculty physician-approved contours. Concordance between resident and faculty physician contours was determined by calculating the Jaccard Concordance Index (JCI), ranging from 0 or no agreement to 1 or complete agreement. Mutivariate mixed effect models were used to assess the association of JCI to the fixed effect of PGY level and its interactions with cancer type and other baseline characteristics. Post hoc means of JCI were compared between PGY levels after accounting for multiple comparisons using a Tukey’s method.
Results In total, 958 structures from 314 patients collected during the 2020-2021 academic year were studied. The mean JCI was 0.77, 0.75, and 0.61 for the levels of PGY-4, PGY-3, and PGY-2, respectively. JCI score in PGY-2 was found lower than those of PGY-3 and PGY-4 respectively (P’s<0.001). No statistically significant difference of JCI score was found when comparing between PGY-3 and PGY-4 levels. The average JCI score was lowest (0.51) for primary head/neck cancers and highest (0.80) for gynecologic cancers.
Conclusion Tracking and comparing the concordance of resident contours and faculty physician contours is an intriguing method of assessing resident performance in contouring and target delineation and could potentially serve as a quantitative metric in radiation oncology resident evaluation, which is lacking currently. However, additional study is necessary before this technique can be incorporated into residency assessments.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
[Conflict of Interest Statement for All Authors] The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
[Funding Statement] Funding: None.
[Data Availability Statement for this Work] Research data are not available at this time.
Data Availability
Research data are not available at this time.
