AIM: To analyze agreement between target volumes, delineated by two observers on transverse (T) and paratransverse (perpendicular to the long cervical axis - PT) MR images for cervix cancer brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 13 patients, High Risk-CTV (HR-CTV) was outlined by two observers in T and PT MR image plane, respecting the GYN GEC-ESTRO recommendations for 3D-image based cervix cancer brachytherapy [1]. Contouring time was measured. HR-CTV sizes were compared, and conformity index (CI) was assessed. Interobserver variations in contour-extent along eight radial directions were compared between delineation planes. After applying a standard treatment plan, an intercomparison of DVH-parameters V100, D90, and D100 for the HR-CTV was carried out. RESULTS: Contouring time was slightly longer in T than PT orientation. Interplane CI did not differ significantly between observers (0.72 vs. 0.71), nor did the interobserver CI between planes (0.79 vs. 0.78). Variations in contour-extent between different radial directions and interplane deviations in DVH parameters were non-significant. CONCLUSION: Contouring in PT, as compared to T plane, allows for a "circumferential view of the cervix" and facilitates comprehensive understanding of spatial relations between the applicator and patho-anatomical structures. It is marked by a lower contouring difficulty and leads to a comparable outcome in terms of DVH parameters. Interobserver inconsistencies can be minimized by systematic training and following the published recommendations.
AIM: To analyze agreement between target volumes, delineated by two observers on transverse (T) and paratransverse (perpendicular to the long cervical axis - PT) MR images for cervix cancer brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 13 patients, High Risk-CTV (HR-CTV) was outlined by two observers in T and PT MR image plane, respecting the GYN GEC-ESTRO recommendations for 3D-image based cervix cancer brachytherapy [1]. Contouring time was measured. HR-CTV sizes were compared, and conformity index (CI) was assessed. Interobserver variations in contour-extent along eight radial directions were compared between delineation planes. After applying a standard treatment plan, an intercomparison of DVH-parameters V100, D90, and D100 for the HR-CTV was carried out. RESULTS: Contouring time was slightly longer in T than PT orientation. Interplane CI did not differ significantly between observers (0.72 vs. 0.71), nor did the interobserver CI between planes (0.79 vs. 0.78). Variations in contour-extent between different radial directions and interplane deviations in DVH parameters were non-significant. CONCLUSION: Contouring in PT, as compared to T plane, allows for a "circumferential view of the cervix" and facilitates comprehensive understanding of spatial relations between the applicator and patho-anatomical structures. It is marked by a lower contouring difficulty and leads to a comparable outcome in terms of DVH parameters. Interobserver inconsistencies can be minimized by systematic training and following the published recommendations.
Authors: M Dolezel; K Odrazka; J Vanasek; T Kohlova; T Kroulik; K Kudelka; D Spitzer; M Mrklovsky; M Tichy; J Zizka; L Jalcova Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Beth Erickson; David K Gaffney; Sushil Beriwal; Sudershan K Bhatia; Omer Lee Burnett; David P D'Souza; Nikhilesh Patil; Michael G Haddock; Anuja Jhingran; Ellen L Jones; Charles A Kunos; Larissa J Lee; Lilie L Lin; Nina A Mayr; Ivy Petersen; Primoz Petric; Lorraine Portelance; William Small; Jonathan B Strauss; Kanokpis Townamchai; Aaron H Wolfson; Catheryn M Yashar; Walter Bosch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicole Nesvacil; Kari Tanderup; Taran P Hellebust; Astrid De Leeuw; Stefan Lang; Sandy Mohamed; Swamidas V Jamema; Clare Anderson; Richard Pötter; Christian Kirisits Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Karem R Domínguez Hernández; Alberto A Aguilar Lasserre; Rubén Posada Gómez; José A Palet Guzmán; Blanca E González Sánchez Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Primoz Petric; Robert Hudej; Peter Rogelj; Mateja Blas; Barbara Segedin; Helena Barbara Zobec Logar; Johannes Carl Athanasios Dimopoulos Journal: Radiol Oncol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 2.991