BACKGROUND: Conformal external radiotherapy aims to improve tumor control by boosting tumor dose, reducing morbidity and sparing healthy tissues. To meet this objective careful visualization of the tumor and adjacent areas is required. However, one of the major issues to be solved in this context is the volumetric definition of the targets. This study proposes to compare the gross volume of lung tumors as delineated by specialized radiologists and radiotherapists of a cancer center. METHODS: Chest CT scans of a total of 23 patients all with non-small cell lung cancer, not submitted to surgery, eligible and referred to conformal radiotherapy on the Hospital A. C. Camargo (São Paulo, Brazil), during the year 2004 were analyzed. All cases were delineated by 2 radiologists and 2 radiotherapists. Only the gross tumor volume and the enlarged lymph nodes were delineated. As such, four gross tumor volumes were achieved for each one of the 23 patients. RESULTS: There was a significant positive correlation between the 2 measurements (among the radiotherapists, radiologists and intra-class) and there was randomness in the distribution of data within the constructed confidence interval. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the definition of gross tumor volume between radiologists and radiotherapists.
BACKGROUND: Conformal external radiotherapy aims to improve tumor control by boosting tumor dose, reducing morbidity and sparing healthy tissues. To meet this objective careful visualization of the tumor and adjacent areas is required. However, one of the major issues to be solved in this context is the volumetric definition of the targets. This study proposes to compare the gross volume of lung tumors as delineated by specialized radiologists and radiotherapists of a cancer center. METHODS: Chest CT scans of a total of 23 patients all with non-small cell lung cancer, not submitted to surgery, eligible and referred to conformal radiotherapy on the Hospital A. C. Camargo (São Paulo, Brazil), during the year 2004 were analyzed. All cases were delineated by 2 radiologists and 2 radiotherapists. Only the gross tumor volume and the enlarged lymph nodes were delineated. As such, four gross tumor volumes were achieved for each one of the 23 patients. RESULTS: There was a significant positive correlation between the 2 measurements (among the radiotherapists, radiologists and intra-class) and there was randomness in the distribution of data within the constructed confidence interval. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the definition of gross tumor volume between radiologists and radiotherapists.
Authors: J M Robertson; R K Ten Haken; M B Hazuka; A T Turrisi; M K Martel; A T Pu; J F Littles; F J Martinez; I R Francis; L E Quint; A S Lichter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P Giraud; M Antoine; A Larrouy; B Milleron; P Callard; Y De Rycke; M F Carette; J C Rosenwald; J M Cosset; M Housset; E Touboul Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Oozeer; B Chauvet; B J Toy; C Berger; R Garcia; C Felix-Faure; H Le Thanh; F Reboul Journal: Cancer Radiother Date: 1999 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.018
Authors: G S Sibley; A J Mundt; C Shapiro; R Jacobs; G Chen; R Weichselbaum; S Vijayakumar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C Lütgendorf-Caucig; I Fotina; E Gallop-Evans; L Claude; J Lindh; T Pelz; B Knäusl; D Georg; R Pötter; K Dieckmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: G F Persson; D E Nygaard; C Hollensen; P Munck af Rosenschöld; L S Mouritsen; A K Due; A K Berthelsen; J Nyman; E Markova; A P Roed; H Roed; S Korreman; L Specht Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.039