PURPOSE: Accurate target definition is considered essential for sophisticated, image-guided radiation therapy; however, relatively little information has been reported that measures our ability to identify the precise shape of targets accurately. We decided to assess the manner in which eight "experts" interpreted the size and shape of tumors based on "real-life" contrast-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) scans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four neuroradiologists and four radiation oncologists (the authors) with considerable experience and presumed expertise in treating head-and-neck tumors independently contoured, slice-by-slice, his/her interpretation of the precise gross tumor volume (GTV) on each of 20 sets of CT scans taken from 20 patients who previously were enrolled in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 91-11. RESULTS: The average proportion of overlap (i.e., the degree of agreement) was 0.532 (95% confidence interval 0.457 to 0.606). There was a slight tendency for the proportion of overlap to increase with increasing average GTV. CONCLUSIONS: Our work suggests that estimation of tumor shape currently is imprecise, even for experienced physicians. In consequence, there appears to be a practical limit to the current trend of smaller fields and tighter margins.
PURPOSE: Accurate target definition is considered essential for sophisticated, image-guided radiation therapy; however, relatively little information has been reported that measures our ability to identify the precise shape of targets accurately. We decided to assess the manner in which eight "experts" interpreted the size and shape of tumors based on "real-life" contrast-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) scans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four neuroradiologists and four radiation oncologists (the authors) with considerable experience and presumed expertise in treating head-and-neck tumors independently contoured, slice-by-slice, his/her interpretation of the precise gross tumor volume (GTV) on each of 20 sets of CT scans taken from 20 patients who previously were enrolled in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 91-11. RESULTS: The average proportion of overlap (i.e., the degree of agreement) was 0.532 (95% confidence interval 0.457 to 0.606). There was a slight tendency for the proportion of overlap to increase with increasing average GTV. CONCLUSIONS: Our work suggests that estimation of tumor shape currently is imprecise, even for experienced physicians. In consequence, there appears to be a practical limit to the current trend of smaller fields and tighter margins.
Authors: Arlene A Forastiere; Helmuth Goepfert; Moshe Maor; Thomas F Pajak; Randal Weber; William Morrison; Bonnie Glisson; Andy Trotti; John A Ridge; Clifford Chao; Glen Peters; Ding-Jen Lee; Andrea Leaf; John Ensley; Jay Cooper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Jeff Kapatoes; Ken Ruchala; Weiguo Lu; Chuan Wu; Gustavo Olivera; Lisa Forrest; Wolfgang Tome; Jim Welsh; Robert Jeraj; Paul Harari; Paul Reckwerdt; Bhudatt Paliwal; Mark Ritter; Harry Keller; Jack Fowler; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gary A Ezzell; James M Galvin; Daniel Low; Jatinder R Palta; Isaac Rosen; Michael B Sharpe; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Lei Xing; Cedric X Yu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Brigitta G Baumert; Geert Bosmans; Marinus van Kroonenburgh; Sigrid Stroobants; Vincent Gregoire; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Suresh K Mukherji; Alicia Y Toledano; Clifford Beldon; Ilona M Schmalfuss; Jay S Cooper; JoRean D Sicks; Robert Amdur; Scott Sailer; Laurie A Loevner; Phil Kousouboris; Kian Ang Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Gerdi Schard; Daniel Berger; Stefan Lang; Gregor Goldner; Thomas Helbich; Richard Pötter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: William M Mendenhall; Christopher G Morris; Robert J Amdur; Russell W Hinerman; Anthony A Mancuso Journal: Head Neck Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.147
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
Authors: Fabian K Lohöfer; Georgios A Kaissis; Frances L Köster; Sebastian Ziegelmayer; Ingo Einspieler; Carlos Gerngross; Michael Rasper; Peter B Noel; Steffen Koerdt; Andreas Fichter; Ernst J Rummeny; Rickmer F Braren Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Satrajit Basu; Anders Berglund; Steven A Eschrich; Matthew B Schabath; Kenneth Forster; Hugo J W L Aerts; Andre Dekker; David Fenstermacher; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Philippe Lambin; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Yuhua Gu; Virendra Kumar; Lawrence O Hall; Dmitry B Goldgof; Ching-Yen Li; René Korn; Claus Bendtsen; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Andre Dekker; Hugo Aerts; Philippe Lambin; Xiuli Li; Jie Tian; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Pattern Recognit Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 7.740