PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is increasingly used for delineating gross tumor volume (GTV) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The methodology for contouring tumor margins remains controversial. We developed a rigorous visual protocol for contouring GTV that uses all available clinical information and studied its reproducibility in patients from a prospective PET/CT planning trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning PET/CT scans from 6 consecutive patients were selected. Six "observers" (two radiation oncologists, two nuclear medicine physicians, and two radiologists) contoured GTVs for each patient using a predefined protocol and subsequently recontoured 2 patients. For the estimated GTVs and axial distances, least-squares means for each observer and for each case were calculated and compared, using the F test and pairwise t-tests. In five cases, tumor margins were also autocontoured using standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoffs of 2.5 and 3.5 and 40% SUV(max). RESULTS: The magnitude of variation between observers was small relative to the mean (coefficient of variation [CV] = 3%), and the total variation (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 3%). For estimation of superior/inferior (SI), left/right (LR), and anterior/posterior (AP) borders of the GTV, differences between observers were also small (AP, CV = 2%, ICC = 0.4%; LR, CV = 6%, ICC = 2%; SI, CV 4%, ICC = 2%). GTVs autocontoured generated using SUV 2.5, 3.5, and 40% SUV(max) differed widely in each case. An SUV contour of 2.5 was most closely correlated with the mean GTV defined by the human observers. CONCLUSIONS: Observer variation contributed little to total variation in the GTV and axial distances. A visual contouring protocol gave reproducible results for contouring GTV in NSCLC. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is increasingly used for delineating gross tumor volume (GTV) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The methodology for contouring tumor margins remains controversial. We developed a rigorous visual protocol for contouring GTV that uses all available clinical information and studied its reproducibility in patients from a prospective PET/CT planning trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning PET/CT scans from 6 consecutive patients were selected. Six "observers" (two radiation oncologists, two nuclear medicine physicians, and two radiologists) contoured GTVs for each patient using a predefined protocol and subsequently recontoured 2 patients. For the estimated GTVs and axial distances, least-squares means for each observer and for each case were calculated and compared, using the F test and pairwise t-tests. In five cases, tumor margins were also autocontoured using standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoffs of 2.5 and 3.5 and 40% SUV(max). RESULTS: The magnitude of variation between observers was small relative to the mean (coefficient of variation [CV] = 3%), and the total variation (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 3%). For estimation of superior/inferior (SI), left/right (LR), and anterior/posterior (AP) borders of the GTV, differences between observers were also small (AP, CV = 2%, ICC = 0.4%; LR, CV = 6%, ICC = 2%; SI, CV 4%, ICC = 2%). GTVs autocontoured generated using SUV 2.5, 3.5, and 40% SUV(max) differed widely in each case. An SUV contour of 2.5 was most closely correlated with the mean GTV defined by the human observers. CONCLUSIONS: Observer variation contributed little to total variation in the GTV and axial distances. A visual contouring protocol gave reproducible results for contouring GTV in NSCLC. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Lucy C Pike; Christopher M Thomas; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Andriana Michaelidou; Tony Greener; Elizabeth Miles; David Eaton; Sally F Barrington Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: R A Bundschuh; N Andratschke; J Dinges; M N Duma; S T Astner; M Brügel; S I Ziegler; M Molls; M Schwaiger; M Essler Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Kaiji Fan; Cathrin Ritter; Paul Nghiem; Astrid Blom; Monique E Verhaegen; Andrzej Dlugosz; Niels Ødum; Anders Woetmann; Richard W Tothill; Rodney J Hicks; Michael Sand; David Schrama; Dirk Schadendorf; Selma Ugurel; Jürgen C Becker Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C Doll; V Duncker-Rohr; G Rücker; M Mix; M MacManus; D De Ruysscher; W Vogel; J G Eriksen; W Oyen; A-L Grosu; W Weber; U Nestle Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.621