Literature DB >> 10436894

A general methodology for three-dimensional analysis of variation in target volume delineation.

P Remeijer1, C Rasch, J V Lebesque, M van Herk.   

Abstract

A generic method for three-dimensional (3-D) evaluation of target volume delineation in multiple imaging modalities is presented. The evaluation includes geometrical and statistical methods to estimate observer differences and variability in defining the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) in relation to the diagnostic CT and MRI modalities. The geometrical method is based on mapping the 3-D shape of the target volume to a scalar representation, thus enabling a one-dimensional statistical analysis. The statistical method distinguishes observer and modality related uncertainties, which are expressed in terms of three error components: random observer deviations, systematic observer differences, and systematic modality differences. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the standard errors of each of the three model parameters are inversely proportional to the square root of the product of the patient group size and the number of observers and proportional to the intraobserver variation. For 18 patients and 3 observers the standard errors of the estimated systematic modality and observer differences are 19% and 14% of the intraobserver standard deviation, respectively. A scalar representation of the shape of the prostate, delineated by 3 observers for 18 patients, was obtained by sampling the distance between the average center of gravity of the prostate in CT and the prostate surface for a large number of directions (2500), using polar coordinates. Observer variability and differences were obtained by applying the statistical method to the samples independently. The intraobserver variation for CT was largest in regions near the seminal vesicles (s.d: 3 mm) and the apex (s.d: 3 mm). The systematic observer variation in CT was largest in a region near the plexus Santorini, at the caudal-anterior side of the prostate (s.d.: 2 mm). The sensitivity for the choice of origin was tested by using the average center of gravity from axial MRI instead of CT. The results were almost identical. The polar map measures distances in the scanning directions. A correction procedure to get the variability in directions perpendicular to the surface of the prostate yielded variations that were a factor of 0.85 smaller for all directions. It is concluded that by separating the shape evaluation in a geometrical and a statistical part, the complexity of the analysis of 3-D shape differences can be significantly reduced. The method was successfully applied to a group of prostate patients, where we demonstrated that delineation variability is nonhomogeneous, with the largest variations occurring near the seminal vesicles and the apex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10436894     DOI: 10.1118/1.598485

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  17 in total

1.  A novel algorithm for the morphometric assessment of radiotherapy treatment planning volumes.

Authors:  R Jena; N F Kirkby; K E Burton; A C F Hoole; L T Tan; N G Burnet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Target definition of moving lung tumors in positron emission tomography: correlation of optimal activity concentration thresholds with object size, motion extent, and source-to-background ratio.

Authors:  Adam C Riegel; M Kara Bucci; Osama R Mawlawi; Valen Johnson; Moiz Ahmad; Xiaojun Sun; Dershan Luo; Adam G Chandler; Tinsu Pan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  LDeform: Longitudinal deformation analysis for adaptive radiotherapy of lung cancer.

Authors:  Saad Nadeem; Pengpeng Zhang; Andreas Rimner; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Joseph O Deasy; Allen Tannenbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Development of a population-based model of surface segmentation uncertainties for uncertainty-weighted deformable image registrations.

Authors:  Jian Wu; Martin J Murphy; Elisabeth Weiss; William C Sleeman; Jeffrey Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology.

Authors:  Nikie J Hoetjes; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Nanda C Krak; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  Clifton D Fuller; Todd J Scarbrough; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Coen R N Rasch; Mehee Choi; Joe Y Ting; Samuel J Wang; Niko Papanikolaou; David I Rosenthal
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-11-24       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Coverage-based treatment planning to accommodate delineation uncertainties in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Huijun Xu; J James Gordon; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  A prospective analysis of inter- and intrafractional errors to calculate CTV to PTV margins in head and neck patients.

Authors:  J Cacicedo; J F Perez; R Ortiz de Zarate; O del Hoyo; F Casquero; A Gómez-Iturriaga; A Lasso; E Boveda; P Bilbao
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 3.405

9.  Observation of interfractional variations in lung tumor position using respiratory gated and ungated megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Jenghwa Chang; Gig S Mageras; Ellen Yorke; Fernando De Arruda; Jussi Sillanpaa; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Agung Hertanto; Hai Pham; Edward Seppi; Alex Pevsner; C Clifton Ling; Howard Amols
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-04-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  New target volume delineation and PTV strategies to further personalise radiotherapy.

Authors:  David Bernstein; Alexandra Taylor; Simeon Nill; Uwe Oelfke
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.