PURPOSE: To compare interobserver variations in delineating the whole breast for treatment planning using two contouring methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Autosegmented contours were generated by a deformable image registration-based breast segmentation method (DEF-SEG) by mapping the whole breast clinical target volume (CTVwb) from a template case to a new patient case. Eight breast radiation oncologists modified the autosegmented contours as necessary to achieve a clinically appropriate CTVwb and then recontoured the same case from scratch for comparison. The times to complete each approach, as well as the interobserver variations, were analyzed. The template case was also mapped to 10 breast cancer patients with a body mass index of 19.1-35.9 kg/m(2). The three-dimensional surface-to-surface distances and volume overlapping analyses were computed to quantify contour variations. RESULTS: The median time to edit the DEF-SEG-generated CTVwb was 12.9 min (range, 3.4-35.9) compared with 18.6 min (range, 8.9-45.2) to contour the CTVwb from scratch (30% faster, p = 0.028). The mean surface-to-surface distance was noticeably reduced from 1.6 mm among the contours generated from scratch to 1.0 mm using the DEF-SEG method (p = 0.047). The deformed contours in 10 patients achieved 94% volume overlap before correction and required editing of 5% (range, 1-10%) of the contoured volume. CONCLUSION: Significant interobserver variations suggested a lack of consensus regarding the CTVwb, even among breast cancer specialists. Using the DEF-SEG method produced more consistent results and required less time. The DEF-SEG method can be successfully applied to patients with different body mass indexes.
PURPOSE: To compare interobserver variations in delineating the whole breast for treatment planning using two contouring methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Autosegmented contours were generated by a deformable image registration-based breast segmentation method (DEF-SEG) by mapping the whole breast clinical target volume (CTVwb) from a template case to a new patient case. Eight breast radiation oncologists modified the autosegmented contours as necessary to achieve a clinically appropriate CTVwb and then recontoured the same case from scratch for comparison. The times to complete each approach, as well as the interobserver variations, were analyzed. The template case was also mapped to 10 breast cancerpatients with a body mass index of 19.1-35.9 kg/m(2). The three-dimensional surface-to-surface distances and volume overlapping analyses were computed to quantify contour variations. RESULTS: The median time to edit the DEF-SEG-generated CTVwb was 12.9 min (range, 3.4-35.9) compared with 18.6 min (range, 8.9-45.2) to contour the CTVwb from scratch (30% faster, p = 0.028). The mean surface-to-surface distance was noticeably reduced from 1.6 mm among the contours generated from scratch to 1.0 mm using the DEF-SEG method (p = 0.047). The deformed contours in 10 patients achieved 94% volume overlap before correction and required editing of 5% (range, 1-10%) of the contoured volume. CONCLUSION: Significant interobserver variations suggested a lack of consensus regarding the CTVwb, even among breast cancer specialists. Using the DEF-SEG method produced more consistent results and required less time. The DEF-SEG method can be successfully applied to patients with different body mass indexes.
Authors: K S Clifford Chao; Shreerang Bhide; Hansen Chen; Joshua Asper; Steven Bush; Gregg Franklin; Vivek Kavadi; Vichaivood Liengswangwong; William Gordon; Adam Raben; Jon Strasser; Christopher Koprowski; Steven Frank; Gregory Chronowski; Anesa Ahamad; Robert Malyapa; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yerko O Borghero; Mohammad Salehpour; Marsha D McNeese; Marilyn Stovall; Susan A Smith; Jennifer Johnson; George H Perkins; Eric A Strom; Julia L Oh; Steven M Kirsner; Wendy A Woodward; Tse-Kuan Yu; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Daniel M Landis; Weixiu Luo; Jun Song; Jennifer R Bellon; Rinaa S Punglia; Julia S Wong; Joseph H Killoran; Rebecca Gelman; Jay R Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: He Wang; Lei Dong; Jennifer O'Daniel; Radhe Mohan; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Deborah A Kuban; Mark Bonnen; Joe Y Chang; Rex Cheung Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: C W Hurkmans; J H Borger; B R Pieters; N S Russell; E P Jansen; B J Mijnheer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kelly H Zou; Simon K Warfield; Aditya Bharatha; Clare M C Tempany; Michael R Kaus; Steven J Haker; William M Wells; Ferenc A Jolesz; Ron Kikinis Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.173
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
Authors: M A Deeley; A Chen; R Datteri; J H Noble; A J Cmelak; E F Donnelly; A W Malcolm; L Moretti; J Jaboin; K Niermann; Eddy S Yang; David S Yu; F Yei; T Koyama; G X Ding; B M Dawant Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jinzhong Yang; Wendy A Woodward; Valerie K Reed; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Welela Tereffe; Thomas A Buchholz; Lifei Zhang; Peter Balter; Laurence E Court; X Allen Li; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jinzhong Yang; Benjamin Haas; Raymond Fang; Beth M Beadle; Adam S Garden; Zhongxing Liao; Lifei Zhang; Peter Balter; Laurence Court Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.609