OBJECTIVE: A study of interobserver variation in the segmentation of the post-operative clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for parotid tumours was undertaken. The segmentation exercise was performed as a baseline, and repeated after 3 months using a segmentation protocol to assess whether CTV conformity improved. METHODS: Four head and neck oncologists independently segmented CTVs and OARs (contralateral parotid, spinal cord and brain stem) on CT data sets of five patients post parotidectomy. For each CTV or OAR delineation, total volume was calculated. The conformity level (CL) between different clinicians' outlines was measured using a validated outline analysis tool. The data for CTVs were re-analysed after using the cochlear sparing therapy and conventional radiation segmentation protocol. RESULTS: Significant differences in CTV morphology were observed at baseline, yielding a mean CL of 30% (range 25-39%). The CL improved after using the segmentation protocol with a mean CL of 54% (range 50-65%). For OARs, the mean CL was 60% (range 53-68%) for the contralateral parotid gland, 23% (range 13-27%) for the brain stem and 25% (range 22-31%) for the spinal cord. CONCLUSIONS: There was low conformity for CTVs and OARs between different clinicians. The CL for CTVs improved with use of a segmentation protocol, but the CLs remained lower than expected. This study supports the need for clear guidelines for segmentation of target and OARs to compare and interpret the results of head and neck cancer radiation studies.
OBJECTIVE: A study of interobserver variation in the segmentation of the post-operative clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for parotid tumours was undertaken. The segmentation exercise was performed as a baseline, and repeated after 3 months using a segmentation protocol to assess whether CTV conformity improved. METHODS: Four head and neck oncologists independently segmented CTVs and OARs (contralateral parotid, spinal cord and brain stem) on CT data sets of five patients post parotidectomy. For each CTV or OAR delineation, total volume was calculated. The conformity level (CL) between different clinicians' outlines was measured using a validated outline analysis tool. The data for CTVs were re-analysed after using the cochlear sparing therapy and conventional radiation segmentation protocol. RESULTS: Significant differences in CTV morphology were observed at baseline, yielding a mean CL of 30% (range 25-39%). The CL improved after using the segmentation protocol with a mean CL of 54% (range 50-65%). For OARs, the mean CL was 60% (range 53-68%) for the contralateral parotid gland, 23% (range 13-27%) for the brain stem and 25% (range 22-31%) for the spinal cord. CONCLUSIONS: There was low conformity for CTVs and OARs between different clinicians. The CL for CTVs improved with use of a segmentation protocol, but the CLs remained lower than expected. This study supports the need for clear guidelines for segmentation of target and OARs to compare and interpret the results of head and neck cancer radiation studies.
Authors: Jan Van de Steene; Nadine Linthout; Johan de Mey; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Cornelia Claassens; Marc Noppen; Arjan Bel; Guy Storme Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Elisabeth Weiss; Susanne Richter; Thomas Krauss; Silke I Metzelthin; Andrea Hille; Olivier Pradier; Birgit Siekmeyer; Hilke Vorwerk; Clemens F Hess Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: C W Hurkmans; J H Borger; B R Pieters; N S Russell; E P Jansen; B J Mijnheer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Philippe Giraud; Sabine Elles; Sylvie Helfre; Yann De Rycke; Vincent Servois; Marie France Carette; Claude Alzieu; Pierre Yves Bondiau; Bernard Dubray; Emmanuel Touboul; Martin Housset; Jean Claude Rosenwald; Jean Marc Cosset Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Patricia Tai; Jake Van Dyk; Jerry Battista; Edward Yu; Larry Stitt; Jon Tonita; Olusegun Agboola; James Brierley; Rashid Dar; Christopher Leighton; Shawn Malone; Barbara Strang; Pauline Truong; Gregory Videtic; C Shun Wong; Rebecca Wong; Youssef Youssef Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-07-01 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: Musaddiq Awan; Brandon Alan Dyer; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Eva Bongers; Max Dahele; Jinzhong Yang; Gary V Walker; Nikhil G Thaker; Emma Holliday; Andrew J Bishop; Charles R Thomas; David I Rosenthal; Clifton David Fuller Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Joshua R Astley; Alberto M Biancardi; Paul J C Hughes; Helen Marshall; Laurie J Smith; Guilhem J Collier; James A Eaden; Nicholas D Weatherley; Matthew Q Hatton; Jim M Wild; Bilal A Tahir Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Esengul Kocak-Uzel; G Brandon Gunn; Rivka R Colen; Micheal E Kantor; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Sara Schoultz-Henley; Paniyotis Mavroidis; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; Beth M Beadle; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Gary V Walker; Musaddiq Awan; Randa Tao; Eugene J Koay; Nicholas S Boehling; Jonathan D Grant; Dean F Sittig; Gary Brandon Gunn; Adam S Garden; Jack Phan; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; Abdallah Sherif Radwan Mohamed; Clifton David Fuller Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David Thomson; Chris Boylan; Tom Liptrot; Adam Aitkenhead; Lip Lee; Beng Yap; Andrew Sykes; Carl Rowbottom; Nicholas Slevin Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 3.481