OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the interobserver variation in parotid gland delineation and its impact on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) solutions. METHODS: The CT volumetric data sets of 10 patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who had been treated with parotid-sparing IMRT were used. Four radiation oncologists and three radiologists delineated the parotid gland that had been spared using IMRT. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) for each study contour was calculated using the IMRT plan actually delivered for that patient. This was compared with the original DVH obtained when the plan was used clinically. RESULTS: 70 study contours were analysed. The mean parotid dose achieved during the actual treatment was within 10% of 24 Gy for all cases. Using the study contours, the mean parotid dose obtained was within 10% of 24 Gy for only 53% of volumes by radiation oncologists and 55% of volumes by radiologists. The parotid DVHs of 46% of the study contours were sufficiently different from those used clinically, such that a different IMRT plan would have been produced. CONCLUSION: Interobserver variation in parotid gland delineation is significant. Further studies are required to determine ways of improving the interobserver consistency in parotid gland definition.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the interobserver variation in parotid gland delineation and its impact on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) solutions. METHODS: The CT volumetric data sets of 10 patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who had been treated with parotid-sparing IMRT were used. Four radiation oncologists and three radiologists delineated the parotid gland that had been spared using IMRT. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) for each study contour was calculated using the IMRT plan actually delivered for that patient. This was compared with the original DVH obtained when the plan was used clinically. RESULTS: 70 study contours were analysed. The mean parotid dose achieved during the actual treatment was within 10% of 24 Gy for all cases. Using the study contours, the mean parotid dose obtained was within 10% of 24 Gy for only 53% of volumes by radiation oncologists and 55% of volumes by radiologists. The parotid DVHs of 46% of the study contours were sufficiently different from those used clinically, such that a different IMRT plan would have been produced. CONCLUSION: Interobserver variation in parotid gland delineation is significant. Further studies are required to determine ways of improving the interobserver consistency in parotid gland definition.
Authors: K A Vineberg; A Eisbruch; M M Coselmon; D L McShan; M L Kessler; B A Fraass Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jay S Cooper; Suresh K Mukherji; Alicia Y Toledano; Clifford Beldon; Ilona M Schmalfuss; Robert Amdur; Scott Sailer; Laurie A Loevner; Phil Kousouboris; K Kian Ang; Jean Cormack; JoRean Sicks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marc W Münter; Simone Hoffner; Holger Hof; Klaus K Herfarth; Uwe Haberkorn; Volker Rudat; Peter Huber; Jürgen Debus; Christian P Karger Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Stephen L Breen; Julia Publicover; Shiroma De Silva; Greg Pond; Kristy Brock; Brian O'Sullivan; Bernard Cummings; Laura Dawson; Anne Keller; John Kim; Jolie Ringash; Eugene Yu; Aaron Hendler; John Waldron Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Yamamoto; Y Nagata; K Okajima; T Ishigaki; R Murata; T Mizowaki; M Kokubo; M Hiraoka Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: C M van Rij; W D Oughlane-Heemsbergen; A H Ackerstaff; E A Lamers; A J M Balm; C R N Rasch Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 3.481
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: Klaudia U Hunter; Laura L Fernandes; Karen A Vineberg; Daniel McShan; Alan E Antonuk; Craig Cornwall; Mary Feng; Mathew J Schipper; James M Balter; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 7.038