BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The integration of positron emission tomography (PET) information for target volume delineation in radiation treatment planning is routine in many centers. In contrast to automatic contouring, research on visual-manual delineation is scarce. The present study investigates the dependency of manual delineation on experience and qualification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 44 international interdisciplinary observers each defined a [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET based gross tumor volume (GTV) using the same PET/CT scan from a patient with lung cancer. The observers were "experts" (E; n = 3), "experienced interdisciplinary pairs" (EP; 9 teams of radiation oncologist (RO) + nuclear medicine physician (NP)), "single field specialists" (SFS; n = 13), and "students" (S; n = 10). Five automatic delineation methods (AM) were also included. Volume sizes and concordance indices within the groups (pCI) and relative to the experts (eCI) were calculated. RESULTS: E (pCI = 0.67) and EP (pCI = 0.53) showed a significantly higher agreement within the groups as compared to SFS (pCI = 0.43, p = 0.03, and p = 0.006). In relation to the experts, EP (eCI = 0.55) showed better concordance compared to SFS (eCI = 0.49) or S (eCI = 0.47). The intermethod variability of the AM (pCI = 0.44) was similar to that of SFS and S, showing poorer agreement with the experts (eCI = 0.35). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that interdisciplinary cooperation could be beneficial for consistent contouring. Joint delineation by a radiation oncologist and a nuclear medicine physician showed remarkable agreement and better concordance with the experts compared to other specialists. The relevant intermethod variability of the automatic algorithms underlines the need for further standardization and optimization in this field.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The integration of positron emission tomography (PET) information for target volume delineation in radiation treatment planning is routine in many centers. In contrast to automatic contouring, research on visual-manual delineation is scarce. The present study investigates the dependency of manual delineation on experience and qualification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 44 international interdisciplinary observers each defined a [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET based gross tumor volume (GTV) using the same PET/CT scan from a patient with lung cancer. The observers were "experts" (E; n = 3), "experienced interdisciplinary pairs" (EP; 9 teams of radiation oncologist (RO) + nuclear medicine physician (NP)), "single field specialists" (SFS; n = 13), and "students" (S; n = 10). Five automatic delineation methods (AM) were also included. Volume sizes and concordance indices within the groups (pCI) and relative to the experts (eCI) were calculated. RESULTS: E (pCI = 0.67) and EP (pCI = 0.53) showed a significantly higher agreement within the groups as compared to SFS (pCI = 0.43, p = 0.03, and p = 0.006). In relation to the experts, EP (eCI = 0.55) showed better concordance compared to SFS (eCI = 0.49) or S (eCI = 0.47). The intermethod variability of the AM (pCI = 0.44) was similar to that of SFS and S, showing poorer agreement with the experts (eCI = 0.35). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that interdisciplinary cooperation could be beneficial for consistent contouring. Joint delineation by a radiation oncologist and a nuclear medicine physician showed remarkable agreement and better concordance with the experts compared to other specialists. The relevant intermethod variability of the automatic algorithms underlines the need for further standardization and optimization in this field.
Authors: U Nestle; K Walter; S Schmidt; N Licht; C Nieder; B Motaref; D Hellwig; M Niewald; D Ukena; C M Kirsch; G W Sybrecht; K Schnabel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tony Shepherd; Mika Teras; Reinhard R Beichel; Ronald Boellaard; Michel Bruynooghe; Volker Dicken; Mark J Gooding; Peter J Julyan; John A Lee; Sébastien Lefèvre; Michael Mix; Valery Naranjo; Xiaodong Wu; Habib Zaidi; Ziming Zeng; Heikki Minn Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 10.048
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: Wouter van Elmpt; Dirk De Ruysscher; Anke van der Salm; Annemarie Lakeman; Judith van der Stoep; Daisy Emans; Eugène Damen; Michel Öllers; Jan-Jakob Sonke; José Belderbos Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Sonal Sura; Carlo Greco; Daphna Gelblum; Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gabriele Reinartz; Uwe Haverkamp; Ramona Wullenkord; Philipp Lehrich; Jan Kriz; Florian Büther; Klaus Schäfers; Michael Schäfers; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael MacManus; Sarah Everitt; Tanja Schimek-Jasch; X Allen Li; Ursula Nestle; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-12
Authors: Judit A Adam; Annika Loft; Cyrus Chargari; Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Elisabeth Kidd; Heiko Schöder; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Wouter V Vogel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sofia C Vaz; Judit A Adam; Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Pierre Vera; Wouter van Elmpt; Ken Herrmann; Rodney J Hicks; Yolande Lievens; Andrea Santos; Heiko Schöder; Bernard Dubray; Dimitris Visvikis; Esther G C Troost; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 10.057