PURPOSE: Variations in target volume delineation represent a significant hurdle in clinical trials involving conformal radiotherapy. We sought to determine the effect of a consensus guideline-based visual atlas on contouring the target volumes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A representative case was contoured (Scan 1) by 14 physician observers and a reference expert with and without target volume delineation instructions derived from a proposed rectal cancer clinical trial involving conformal radiotherapy. The gross tumor volume (GTV), and two clinical target volumes (CTVA, including the internal iliac, presacral, and perirectal nodes, and CTVB, which included the external iliac nodes) were contoured. The observers were randomly assigned to receipt (Group A) or nonreceipt (Group B) of a consensus guideline and atlas for anorectal cancers and then instructed to recontour the same case/images (Scan 2). Observer variation was analyzed volumetrically using the conformation number (CN, where CN = 1 equals total agreement). RESULTS: Of 14 evaluable contour sets (1 expert and 7 Group A and 6 Group B observers), greater agreement was found for the GTV (mean CN, 0.75) than for the CTVs (mean CN, 0.46-0.65). Atlas exposure for Group A led to significantly increased interobserver agreement for CTVA (mean initial CN, 0.68, after atlas use, 0.76; p = .03) and increased agreement with the expert reference (initial mean CN, 0.58; after atlas use, 0.69; p = .02). For the GTV and CTVB, neither the interobserver nor the expert agreement was altered after atlas exposure. CONCLUSION: Consensus guideline atlas implementation resulted in a detectable difference in interobserver agreement and a greater approximation of expert volumes for the CTVA but not for the GTV or CTVB in the specified case. Visual atlas inclusion should be considered as a feature in future clinical trials incorporating conformal RT. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Variations in target volume delineation represent a significant hurdle in clinical trials involving conformal radiotherapy. We sought to determine the effect of a consensus guideline-based visual atlas on contouring the target volumes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A representative case was contoured (Scan 1) by 14 physician observers and a reference expert with and without target volume delineation instructions derived from a proposed rectal cancer clinical trial involving conformal radiotherapy. The gross tumor volume (GTV), and two clinical target volumes (CTVA, including the internal iliac, presacral, and perirectal nodes, and CTVB, which included the external iliac nodes) were contoured. The observers were randomly assigned to receipt (Group A) or nonreceipt (Group B) of a consensus guideline and atlas for anorectal cancers and then instructed to recontour the same case/images (Scan 2). Observer variation was analyzed volumetrically using the conformation number (CN, where CN = 1 equals total agreement). RESULTS: Of 14 evaluable contour sets (1 expert and 7 Group A and 6 Group B observers), greater agreement was found for the GTV (mean CN, 0.75) than for the CTVs (mean CN, 0.46-0.65). Atlas exposure for Group A led to significantly increased interobserver agreement for CTVA (mean initial CN, 0.68, after atlas use, 0.76; p = .03) and increased agreement with the expert reference (initial mean CN, 0.58; after atlas use, 0.69; p = .02). For the GTV and CTVB, neither the interobserver nor the expert agreement was altered after atlas exposure. CONCLUSION: Consensus guideline atlas implementation resulted in a detectable difference in interobserver agreement and a greater approximation of expert volumes for the CTVA but not for the GTV or CTVB in the specified case. Visual atlas inclusion should be considered as a feature in future clinical trials incorporating conformal RT. Copyright Â
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Joop C Duppen; Isabelle Fitton; Kirsten E I Deurloo; Lambert J Zijp; Emile F I Comans; Apollonia L J Uitterhoeve; Patrick T R Rodrigus; Gijsbert W P Kramer; Johan Bussink; Katrien De Jaeger; José S A Belderbos; Peter J C M Nowak; Marcel van Herk; Coen R N Rasch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charlotte E Coles; Andrew C F Hoole; Susan V Harden; Neil G Burnet; Nicola Twyman; Roger E Taylor; Rolf D Kortmann; Michael V Williams Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.280
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: S Gwynne; E Spezi; D Sebag-Montefiore; S Mukherjee; E Miles; J Conibear; J Staffurth Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Seo Hee Choi; Jee Suk Chang; Hong In Yoon; Dong-Su Jang; Nam Kyu Kim; Joon Seok Lim; Byung So Min; Hyuk Huh; Sang Joon Shin; Joong Bae Ahn; Woong Sub Koom Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Panayiotis Mavroidis; Drosoula Giantsoudis; Musaddiq J Awan; Jasper Nijkamp; Coen R N Rasch; Joop C Duppen; Charles R Thomas; Paul Okunieff; William E Jones; Lisa A Kachnic; Niko Papanikolaou; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 6.280