PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to validate the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-endorsed guidelines for brachial plexus (BP) contouring by determining the intra- and interobserver agreement. Accuracy of the delineation process was determined using anatomically validated imaging datasets as a gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five observers delineated the right BP on three cadaver computed tomography (CT) datasets. To assess intraobserver variation, every observer repeated each delineation three times with a time interval of 2 weeks. The BP contours were divided into four regions for detailed analysis. Inter- and intraobserver variation was verified using the Computerized Environment for Radiation Research (CERR) software. Accuracy was measured using anatomically validated fused CT-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets by measuring the BP inclusion of the delineations. RESULTS: The overall kappa (κ) values were rather low (mean interobserver overall κ: 0.29, mean intraobserver overall κ: 0.45), indicating poor inter- and intraobserver reliability. In general, the κ coefficient decreased gradually from the medial to lateral BP regions. The total agreement volume (TAV) was much smaller than the union volume (UV) for all delineations, resulting in a low Jaccard index (JI; interobserver agreement 0-0.124; intraobserver agreement 0.004-0.636). The overall accuracy was poor, with an average total BP inclusion of 38%. Inclusions were insufficient for the most lateral regions (region 3: 21.5%; region 4: 12.6%). CONCLUSION: The inter- and intraobserver reliability of the RTOG-endorsed BP contouring guidelines was poor. BP inclusion worsened from the medial to lateral regions. Accuracy assessment of the contours showed an average BP inclusion of 38%. For the first time, this was assessed using the original anatomically validated BP volume. The RTOG-endorsed BP guidelines have insufficient accuracy and reliability, especially for the lateral head-and-neck regions.
PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to validate the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-endorsed guidelines for brachial plexus (BP) contouring by determining the intra- and interobserver agreement. Accuracy of the delineation process was determined using anatomically validated imaging datasets as a gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five observers delineated the right BP on three cadaver computed tomography (CT) datasets. To assess intraobserver variation, every observer repeated each delineation three times with a time interval of 2 weeks. The BP contours were divided into four regions for detailed analysis. Inter- and intraobserver variation was verified using the Computerized Environment for Radiation Research (CERR) software. Accuracy was measured using anatomically validated fused CT-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets by measuring the BP inclusion of the delineations. RESULTS: The overall kappa (κ) values were rather low (mean interobserver overall κ: 0.29, mean intraobserver overall κ: 0.45), indicating poor inter- and intraobserver reliability. In general, the κ coefficient decreased gradually from the medial to lateral BP regions. The total agreement volume (TAV) was much smaller than the union volume (UV) for all delineations, resulting in a low Jaccard index (JI; interobserver agreement 0-0.124; intraobserver agreement 0.004-0.636). The overall accuracy was poor, with an average total BP inclusion of 38%. Inclusions were insufficient for the most lateral regions (region 3: 21.5%; region 4: 12.6%). CONCLUSION: The inter- and intraobserver reliability of the RTOG-endorsed BP contouring guidelines was poor. BP inclusion worsened from the medial to lateral regions. Accuracy assessment of the contours showed an average BP inclusion of 38%. For the first time, this was assessed using the original anatomically validated BP volume. The RTOG-endorsed BP guidelines have insufficient accuracy and reliability, especially for the lateral head-and-neck regions.
Authors: Michael G Jameson; Lois C Holloway; Philip J Vial; Shalini K Vinod; Peter E Metcalfe Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Arya Amini; Jinzhong Yang; Ryan Williamson; Michelle L McBurney; Jeremy Erasmus; Pamela K Allen; Mandar Karhade; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Daniel Gomez; James Cox; Lei Dong; James Welsh Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Emmanuel Audenaert; Bruno Speleers; Tom Vercauteren; Thomas Mulliez; Pieter Vandemaele; Eric Achten; Ingrid Kerckaert; Katharina D'Herde; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sun K Yi; William H Hall; Mathew Mathai; Arthur B Dublin; Vishal Gupta; James A Purdy; Allen M Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Piet Ost; Gert De Meerleer; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Liv Veldeman; Katrien Vandecasteele; Valérie Fonteyne; Geert Villeirs Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Allen M Chen; William H Hall; Judy Li; Laurel Beckett; D Gregory Farwell; Derick H Lau; James A Purdy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-03-22 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: Joris Van de Velde; Johan Wouters; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Eric Achten; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Johan Wouters; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Eric Achten; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.481