Literature DB >> 10368038

Differences in target outline delineation from CT scans of brain tumours using different methods and different observers.

M Yamamoto1, Y Nagata, K Okajima, T Ishigaki, R Murata, T Mizowaki, M Kokubo, M Hiraoka.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess errors resulting from manual transfer of contour information for three-dimensional (3-D) target reconstruction, and to determine variations in target volume delineation of brain tumours by different radiation oncologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of 18 patients with intracranial astrocytomas were used for retrospective treatment planning by five radiation oncologists. In this study, the target outline was delineated on sequential CT slices by an experienced radiation oncologist. Thereafter, the target outline was manually reconstructed by five radiation oncologists onto an A-P or lateral scout film. The same target outline was also reconstructed as a projection using the Beam's-eye view capability on a CT simulator unit. The two target outlines were compared by encompassing each shape with the smallest rectangle. The manually-reconstructed radiation field was termed 'Field manually established on X-ray film (F-X)', and the automatically-established field was termed 'Field established by CT simulator (F-CT)'. In a second part of this study, four radiation oncologists defined contours from contrast enhanced CT images of nine patients with intracranial astrocytomas. The CT images of these nine cases included five pre-operative cases and four post-operative cases. Both gross tumour volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were outlined on sequential CT slices. The target outlines for the four radiation oncologists were compared by identifying the smallest rectangular field surrounding the projection of these contours. The field established by each radiation oncologist was termed 'Field of target volume (F-TV)', and the overlapping portion of the four F-TVs for each case was termed 'Overlapped field of the target volume (Fo-TV)'.
RESULTS: The average distance between the isocentres of F-X and F-CT was 0.6 +/- 0.4 cm (mean +/- SD). The average ratio of the area of F-X divided by the area of F-CT was 1.04 +/- 0.12. The area of F-X was wider than the area of F-CT for four of the five oncologists. The ratio of the area of F-TV divided by the area of Fo-TV was calculated. The average ratio was relatively greater for CTV (2.07 in pre-operative cases and 2.11 in post-operative cases) than for GTV (1.12 in pre-operative cases and 1.41 in post-operative cases). Among radiation oncologists, variations in the delineation of GTV were smaller than those of CTV.
CONCLUSIONS: When using an X-ray simulator in treatment planning, errors resulting from the manual transfer of CT contour information to planar radiographs must be considered. When computer techniques are used to project contours onto radiographs errors resulting from individual variations when performing the contouring must be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10368038     DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(99)00015-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  10 in total

1.  Interobserver variation in clinical target volume and organs at risk segmentation in post-parotidectomy radiotherapy: can segmentation protocols help?

Authors:  M Mukesh; R Benson; R Jena; A Hoole; T Roques; C Scrase; C Martin; G A Whitfield; J Gemmill; S Jefferies
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Interobserver variation in parotid gland delineation: a study of its impact on intensity-modulated radiotherapy solutions with a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  S W Loo; W M C Martin; P Smith; S Cherian; T W Roques
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Emerging techniques and technologies in brain tumor imaging.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; A Gregory Sorensen; Whitney B Pope
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 12.300

4.  CT- and MRI-based gross target volume comparison in vestibular schwannomas.

Authors:  Bhudevi Soubhagya N Kulkarni; Harjot Bajwa; Mukka Chandrashekhar; Sunil Dutt Sharma; Rohith Singareddy; Dileep Gudipudi; Shabbir Ahmad; Alok Kumar; N V N Madusudan Sresty; Alluri Krishnam Raju
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-04-22

5.  Contouring variations and the role of atlas in non-small cell lung cancer radiation therapy: Analysis of a multi-institutional preclinical trial planning study.

Authors:  Yunfeng Cui; Wenzhou Chen; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Lindsey A Olsen; Ronald E Beatty; Peter G Maxim; Timothy Ritter; Jason W Sohn; Jane Higgins; James M Galvin; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-06-30

6.  Variability of target and normal structure delineation for breast cancer radiotherapy: an RTOG Multi-Institutional and Multiobserver Study.

Authors:  X Allen Li; An Tai; Douglas W Arthur; Thomas A Buchholz; Shannon Macdonald; Lawrence B Marks; Jean M Moran; Lori J Pierce; Rachel Rabinovitch; Alphonse Taghian; Frank Vicini; Wendy Woodward; Julia R White
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Current concepts on imaging in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Michela Lecchi; Piero Fossati; Federica Elisei; Roberto Orecchia; Giovanni Lucignani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Initial evaluation of automated treatment planning software.

Authors:  Dawn Gintz; Kujtim Latifi; Jimmy Caudell; Benjamin Nelms; Geoffrey Zhang; Eduardo Moros; Vladimir Feygelman
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Variations in CT determination of target volume with active breath co-ordinate in radiotherapy for post-operative gastric cancer.

Authors:  Gui-Chao Li; Zhen Zhang; Xue-Jun Ma; Xiao-Li Yu; Wei-Gang Hu; Jia-Zhou Wang; Qi-Wen Li; Li-Ping Liang; Li-Jun Shen; Hui Zhang; Ming Fan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Assessment of consistency in contouring of normal-tissue anatomic structures.

Authors:  Dawn C Collier; Stuart S C Burnett; Mayankkumar Amin; Stephen Bilton; Christopher Brooks; Amanda Ryan; Dominique Roniger; Danny Tran; George Starkschall
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.