Initial experience with introducing national guidelines for CT- and MRI-based delineation of organs at risk in radiotherapy.

A fundamental problem in radiotherapy is the variation of organ at risk (OAR) volumes. Here we present our initial experience in engaging a large Radiation Oncology (RO) community to agree on national guidelines for OAR delineations. Our project builds on associated standardization initiatives and invites professionals from all radiotherapy departments nationwide. Presently, one guideline (rectum) has successfully been agreed on by a majority vote. Reaching out to all relevant parties in a timely manner and motivating funding agencies to support the work represented early challenges. Population-based data and a scalable methodological approach are major strengths of the proposed strategy.

A national approach for automated collection of standardized and population-based radiation therapy data in Sweden.

PURPOSE: To develop an infrastructure for structured and automated collection of interoperable radiation therapy (RT) data into a national clinical quality registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was initiated in 2012 with the participation of seven of the 15 hospital departments delivering RT in Sweden. A national RT nomenclature and a database for structured unified storage of RT data at each site (Medical Information Quality Archive, MIQA) have been developed. Aggregated data from the MIQA databases are sent to a national RT registry located on the same IT platform (INCA) as the national clinical cancer registries. RESULTS: The suggested naming convention has to date been integrated into the clinical workflow at 12 of 15 sites, and MIQA is installed at six of these. Involvement of the remaining 3/15 RT departments is ongoing, and they are expected to be part of the infrastructure by 2016. RT data collection from ARIA®, Mosaiq®, Eclipse™, and Oncentra® is supported. Manual curation of RT-structure information is needed for approximately 10% of target volumes, but rarely for normal tissue structures, demonstrating a good compliance to the RT nomenclature. Aggregated dose/volume descriptors are calculated based on the information in MIQA and sent to INCA using a dedicated service (MIQA2INCA). Correct linkage of data for each patient to the clinical cancer registries on the INCA platform is assured by the unique Swedish personal identity number. CONCLUSIONS: An infrastructure for structured and automated prospective collection of syntactically interoperable RT data into a national clinical quality registry for RT data is under implementation. Future developments include adapting MIQA to other treatment modalities (e.g. proton therapy and brachytherapy) and finding strategies to harmonize structure delineations. How the RT registry should comply with domain-specific ontologies such as the Radiation Oncology Ontology (ROO) is under discussion.