PURPOSE: To evaluate the image-guidance capabilities of megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT), this article compares the interobserver and intraobserver contouring uncertainty in kilovoltage computed tomography (KVCT) used for radiotherapy planning with MVCT acquired with helical tomotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five prostate-cancer patients were evaluated. Each patient underwent a KVCT and an MVCT study, a total of 10 CT studies. For interobserver variability analysis, four radiation oncologists, one physicist, and two radiation therapists (seven observers in total) contoured the prostate and seminal vesicles (SV) in the 10 studies. The intraobserver variability was assessed by asking all observers to repeat the contouring of 1 patient's KVCT and MVCT studies. Quantitative analysis of contour variations was performed by use of volumes and radial distances. RESULTS: The interobserver and intraobserver contouring uncertainty was larger in MVCT compared with KVCT. Observers consistently segmented larger volumes on MVCT where the ratio of average prostate and SV volumes was 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. On average (interobserver and intraobserver), the local delineation variability, in terms of standard deviations [Deltasigma = radical(sigma2MVCT-sigma2KVCT)], increased by 0.32 cm from KVCT to MVCT. CONCLUSIONS: Although MVCT was inferior to KVCT for prostate delineation, the application of MVCT in prostate radiotherapy remains useful.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image-guidance capabilities of megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT), this article compares the interobserver and intraobserver contouring uncertainty in kilovoltage computed tomography (KVCT) used for radiotherapy planning with MVCT acquired with helical tomotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five prostate-cancerpatients were evaluated. Each patient underwent a KVCT and an MVCT study, a total of 10 CT studies. For interobserver variability analysis, four radiation oncologists, one physicist, and two radiation therapists (seven observers in total) contoured the prostate and seminal vesicles (SV) in the 10 studies. The intraobserver variability was assessed by asking all observers to repeat the contouring of 1 patient's KVCT and MVCT studies. Quantitative analysis of contour variations was performed by use of volumes and radial distances. RESULTS: The interobserver and intraobserver contouring uncertainty was larger in MVCT compared with KVCT. Observers consistently segmented larger volumes on MVCT where the ratio of average prostate and SV volumes was 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. On average (interobserver and intraobserver), the local delineation variability, in terms of standard deviations [Deltasigma = radical(sigma2MVCT-sigma2KVCT)], increased by 0.32 cm from KVCT to MVCT. CONCLUSIONS: Although MVCT was inferior to KVCT for prostate delineation, the application of MVCT in prostate radiotherapy remains useful.
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Johan Wouters; Katrien Vandecasteele; Philippe Vuye; Frank Vanpachtenbeke; Katharina D'Herde; Ingrid Kerckaert; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Matthew P Deek; Sinae Kim; Ning Yue; Rekha Baby; Inaya Ahmed; Wei Zou; John Langenfeld; Joseph Aisner; Salma K Jabbour Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Adam D Melancon; Jennifer C O'Daniel; Lifei Zhang; Rajat J Kudchadker; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Rex M Cheung; Renaud de Crevoisier; Susan L Tucker; Wayne D Newhauser; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 6.280