PURPOSE: To quantify the multi-institutional and multiobserver variability of target and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation for breast-cancer radiotherapy (RT) and its dosimetric impact as the first step of a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group effort to establish a breast cancer atlas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine radiation oncologists specializing in breast RT from eight institutions independently delineated targets (e.g., lumpectomy cavity, boost planning target volume, breast, supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary nodes, chest wall) and OARs (e.g., heart, lung) on the same CT images of three representative breast cancer patients. Interobserver differences in structure delineation were quantified regarding volume, distance between centers of mass, percent overlap, and average surface distance. Mean, median, and standard deviation for these quantities were calculated for all possible combinations. To assess the impact of these variations on treatment planning, representative dosimetric plans based on observer-specific contours were generated. RESULTS: Variability in contouring the targets and OARs between the institutions and observers was substantial. Structure overlaps were as low as 10%, and volume variations had standard deviations up to 60%. The large variability was related both to differences in opinion regarding target and OAR boundaries and approach to incorporation of setup uncertainty and dosimetric limitations in target delineation. These interobserver differences result in substantial variations in dosimetric planning for breast RT. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in target and OAR delineation for breast irradiation between institutions/observers appear to be clinically and dosimetrically significant. A systematic consensus is highly desirable, particularly in the era of intensity-modulated and image-guided RT.
PURPOSE: To quantify the multi-institutional and multiobserver variability of target and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation for breast-cancer radiotherapy (RT) and its dosimetric impact as the first step of a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group effort to establish a breast cancer atlas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine radiation oncologists specializing in breast RT from eight institutions independently delineated targets (e.g., lumpectomy cavity, boost planning target volume, breast, supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary nodes, chest wall) and OARs (e.g., heart, lung) on the same CT images of three representative breast cancerpatients. Interobserver differences in structure delineation were quantified regarding volume, distance between centers of mass, percent overlap, and average surface distance. Mean, median, and standard deviation for these quantities were calculated for all possible combinations. To assess the impact of these variations on treatment planning, representative dosimetric plans based on observer-specific contours were generated. RESULTS: Variability in contouring the targets and OARs between the institutions and observers was substantial. Structure overlaps were as low as 10%, and volume variations had standard deviations up to 60%. The large variability was related both to differences in opinion regarding target and OAR boundaries and approach to incorporation of setup uncertainty and dosimetric limitations in target delineation. These interobserver differences result in substantial variations in dosimetric planning for breast RT. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in target and OAR delineation for breast irradiation between institutions/observers appear to be clinically and dosimetrically significant. A systematic consensus is highly desirable, particularly in the era of intensity-modulated and image-guided RT.
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: Frank A Vicini; Michael Sharpe; Larry Kestin; Alvaro Martinez; Christina K Mitchell; Michelle F Wallace; Richard Matter; John Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B S Teh; H H Lu; S Sobremonte; D Bellezza; J K Chiu; L S Carpenter; W S Dennis; S Y Woo; E B Butler Journal: Breast J Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Mary Feng; Jean M Moran; Todd Koelling; Aamer Chughtai; June L Chan; Laura Freedman; James A Hayman; Reshma Jagsi; Shruti Jolly; Janice Larouere; Julie Soriano; Robin Marsh; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Musaddiq Awan; Steven Bedrick; Coen R N Rasch; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Y M Kirova; P Castro Pena; R Dendale; V Servois; M A Bollet; N Fournier-Bidoz; F Campana; A Fourquet Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Valerie K Reed; Wendy A Woodward; Lifei Zhang; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Welela Tereffe; Julia L Oh; T Kuan Yu; Isabelle Bedrosian; Gary J Whitman; Thomas A Buchholz; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Emma Holliday; Clifton D Fuller; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Daniel Gomez; Andreas Rimner; Ying Li; Suresh Senan; Lynn D Wilson; Jehee Choi; Ritsuko Komaki; Charles R Thomas Journal: J Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-11-03
Authors: Kuo Men; Huaizhi Geng; Chingyun Cheng; Haoyu Zhong; Mi Huang; Yong Fan; John P Plastaras; Alexander Lin; Ying Xiao Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.071