PURPOSE: To evaluate the variability of organ at risk (OAR) delineation and the resulting impact on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan optimization in head-and-neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An expert panel of 3 radiation oncologists jointly delineated OARs, including the parotid and submandibular glands (SM), pharyngeal constrictors (PC), larynx, and glottis (GL), in 10 patients with advanced oropharynx cancer in 3 contouring sessions, spaced at least 1 week apart. Contour variability and uncertainty, as well as their dosimetric impact on IMRT planning for each case, were assessed. RESULTS: The mean difference in total volume for each OAR was 1 cm(3) (σ 0.5 cm(3)). Mean fractional overlap was 0.7 (σ 0.1) and was highest (0.8) for the larynx and bilateral SMs and parotids and lowest (0.5) for PC. There were considerable spatial differences in contours, with the ipsilateral parotid and PC displaying the most variability (0.9 cm), which was most prominent in cases in which tumors obliterated fat planes. Both SMs and GL had the smallest differences (0.5 cm). The mean difference in OAR dose was 0.9 Gy (range 0.6-1.1 Gy, σ 0.1 Gy), with the smallest difference for GL and largest for both SMs and the larynx. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial difference in OAR contours, optimization was barely affected, with a 0.9-Gy mean difference between optimizations, suggesting relative insensitivity of dose distributions for IMRT of oropharynx cancer to the extent of OARs.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the variability of organ at risk (OAR) delineation and the resulting impact on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan optimization in head-and-neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An expert panel of 3 radiation oncologists jointly delineated OARs, including the parotid and submandibular glands (SM), pharyngeal constrictors (PC), larynx, and glottis (GL), in 10 patients with advanced oropharynx cancer in 3 contouring sessions, spaced at least 1 week apart. Contour variability and uncertainty, as well as their dosimetric impact on IMRT planning for each case, were assessed. RESULTS: The mean difference in total volume for each OAR was 1 cm(3) (σ 0.5 cm(3)). Mean fractional overlap was 0.7 (σ 0.1) and was highest (0.8) for the larynx and bilateral SMs and parotids and lowest (0.5) for PC. There were considerable spatial differences in contours, with the ipsilateral parotid and PC displaying the most variability (0.9 cm), which was most prominent in cases in which tumors obliterated fat planes. Both SMs and GL had the smallest differences (0.5 cm). The mean difference in OAR dose was 0.9 Gy (range 0.6-1.1 Gy, σ 0.1 Gy), with the smallest difference for GL and largest for both SMs and the larynx. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial difference in OAR contours, optimization was barely affected, with a 0.9-Gy mean difference between optimizations, suggesting relative insensitivity of dose distributions for IMRT of oropharynx cancer to the extent of OARs.
Authors: Joseph O Deasy; Vitali Moiseenko; Lawrence Marks; K S Clifford Chao; Jiho Nam; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Adam C Riegel; Anthony M Berson; Sylvie Destian; Tracy Ng; Lawrence B Tena; Robin J Mitnick; Ping S Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Felix Y Feng; Hyungjin M Kim; Teresa H Lyden; Marc J Haxer; Francis P Worden; Mary Feng; Jeffrey S Moyer; Mark E Prince; Thomas E Carey; Gregory T Wolf; Carol R Bradford; Douglas B Chepeha; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: Felix Y Feng; Hyungjin M Kim; Teresa H Lyden; Marc J Haxer; Mary Feng; Frank P Worden; Douglas B Chepeha; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gregory Sharp; Karl D Fritscher; Vladimir Pekar; Marta Peroni; Nadya Shusharina; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jinzhong Yang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: N Patrik Brodin; Rafi Kabarriti; Mark Pankuch; Clyde B Schechter; Vinai Gondi; Shalom Kalnicki; Chandan Guha; Madhur K Garg; Wolfgang A Tomé Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Irene Hazell; Karl Bzdusek; Prashant Kumar; Christian R Hansen; Anders Bertelsen; Jesper G Eriksen; Jørgen Johansen; Carsten Brink Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Lixun Xian; Guangjun Li; Qing Xiao; Zhibin Li; Xiangbin Zhang; Li Chen; Zhenyao Hu; Sen Bai Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Haylea Richardson; Mahesh Kumar; Minh Thi Tieu; Joel Parker; Jason A Dowling; Jameen Arm; Leah Best; Peter B Greer; Matthew Clapham; Christopher Oldmeadow; Laura O'Connor; Chris Wratten Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2021-10-22