Chengxin Liu1, Xudong Kong, Guanzhong Gong, Tonghai Liu, Baosheng Li, Yong Yin. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong's Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Jinan and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, JiYan Road 440, Jinan, 250117, Shandong, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the intra- and interobserver variations errors in the parotid contour delineated using computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) images of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who underwent radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one nasopharyngeal cancer patients were selected. The patients underwent simulation with MR and CT scanning. The gross tumor volume and organs at risk were contoured on both contrasted CT and T1-MR images. For each patient, one radiotherapist delineated the parotid on CT and MR images ten times, and ten different radiotherapists were asked to delineate the parotid on CT and MR images once each. The inter- and intraobserver variations in volume and outline were compared. RESULTS: For the interobserver comparison, the volumes of the parotid as evaluated from the CT and MR images were 34.6 ± 12.1 cm(3) (left), 34.3 ± 9.0 cm(3) (right), and 24.6 ± 7.6 cm(3) (L), 23.2 ± 8.1 cm(3) (R), respectively. For the intraobserver comparison, the volumes evaluated from the CT and MR images were 28.2 ± 7.6 cm(3) (L), 29.4 ± 9.4 cm(3) (R), and 24.4 ± 7.6 cm(3) (L), 22.5 ± 7.4 cm(3) (R), respectively. The relative variations in volume when using MR images were 4.7 ± 0.7 % (L), 5.0 ± 0.6 % (R) for the interobserver variations and 2.3 ± 0.4 % (L), 2.1 ± 0.7 % (R) for the intraobserver variations. However, the inter- and intraobserver relative variations in volume when using CT images were 18.0 ± 4.8 % (L), 17.4 ± 4.6 % (R) and 6.3 ± 1.5 % (L), 6.8 ± 1.5 % (R), respectively. CONCLUSION: The parotid contour is delineated more accurately and reproducibly on MR images than on CT images.
PURPOSE: To analyze the intra- and interobserver variations errors in the parotid contour delineated using computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) images of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who underwent radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one nasopharyngeal cancerpatients were selected. The patients underwent simulation with MR and CT scanning. The gross tumor volume and organs at risk were contoured on both contrasted CT and T1-MR images. For each patient, one radiotherapist delineated the parotid on CT and MR images ten times, and ten different radiotherapists were asked to delineate the parotid on CT and MR images once each. The inter- and intraobserver variations in volume and outline were compared. RESULTS: For the interobserver comparison, the volumes of the parotid as evaluated from the CT and MR images were 34.6 ± 12.1 cm(3) (left), 34.3 ± 9.0 cm(3) (right), and 24.6 ± 7.6 cm(3) (L), 23.2 ± 8.1 cm(3) (R), respectively. For the intraobserver comparison, the volumes evaluated from the CT and MR images were 28.2 ± 7.6 cm(3) (L), 29.4 ± 9.4 cm(3) (R), and 24.4 ± 7.6 cm(3) (L), 22.5 ± 7.4 cm(3) (R), respectively. The relative variations in volume when using MR images were 4.7 ± 0.7 % (L), 5.0 ± 0.6 % (R) for the interobserver variations and 2.3 ± 0.4 % (L), 2.1 ± 0.7 % (R) for the intraobserver variations. However, the inter- and intraobserver relative variations in volume when using CT images were 18.0 ± 4.8 % (L), 17.4 ± 4.6 % (R) and 6.3 ± 1.5 % (L), 6.8 ± 1.5 % (R), respectively. CONCLUSION: The parotid contour is delineated more accurately and reproducibly on MR images than on CT images.
Authors: Dora L W Kwong; Jonathan S T Sham; Lucullus H T Leung; Ashley C K Cheng; W M Ng; Philip W K Kwong; W M Lui; C C Yau; P M Wu; William Wei; Gordon Au Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Harry C Y Cheng; Vincent W C Wu; Roger K C Ngan; K W Tang; Charlie C L Chan; K H Wong; S K Au; Dora L W Kwong Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Francis Kar-ho Lee; Ann Dorothy King; Michael Koon-ming Kam; Brigette Buig-yue Ma; David Ka-wai Yeung Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Manish S Sharma; Douglas Kondziolka; Aftaab Khan; Hideyuki Kano; Ajay Niranjan; John C Flickinger; L Dade Lunsford Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Gerda M Verduijn; Lambertus W Bartels; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Chris H J Terhaard; Frank A Pameijer; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eliana M Vásquez Osorio; Mischa S Hoogeman; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; David N Teguh; Peter C Levendag; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038