Theodore S Hong1, Walter R Bosch2, Sunil Krishnan3, Tae K Kim4, Harvey J Mamon5, Paul Shyn6, Edgar Ben-Josef7, Jinsil Seong8, Michael G Haddock9, Jason C Cheng10, Mary U Feng11, Kevin L Stephans12, David Roberge13, Christopher Crane3, Laura A Dawson14. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: tshong1@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University Medical College, Seoul, Korea. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, Montreal General Hospital/McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Defining hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) gross tumor volume (GTV) requires multimodal imaging, acquired in different perfusion phases. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the variability in contouring and to establish guidelines and educational recommendations for reproducible HCC contouring for treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Anonymous, multiphasic planning computed tomography scans obtained from 3 patients with HCC were identified and distributed to a panel of 11 gastrointestinal radiation oncologists. Panelists were asked the number of HCC cases they treated in the past year. Case 1 had no vascular involvement, case 2 had extensive portal vein involvement, and case 3 had minor branched portal vein involvement. The agreement between the contoured total GTVs (primary + vascular GTV) was assessed using the generalized kappa statistic. Agreement interpretation was evaluated using Landis and Koch's interpretation of strength of agreement. The S95 contour, defined using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm consensus at the 95% confidence level, was created for each case. RESULTS: Of the 11 panelists, 3 had treated >25 cases in the past year, 2 had treated 10 to 25 cases, 2 had treated 5 to 10 cases, 2 had treated 1 to 5 cases, 1 had treated 0 cases, and 1 did not respond. Near perfect agreement was seen for case 1, and substantial agreement was seen for cases 2 and 3. For case 2, there was significant heterogeneity in the volume identified as tumor thrombus (range 0.58-40.45 cc). For case 3, 2 panelists did not include the branched portal vein thrombus, and 7 panelists contoured thrombus separately from the primary tumor, also showing significant heterogeneity in volume of tumor thrombus (range 4.52-34.27 cc). CONCLUSIONS: In a group of experts, excellent agreement was seen in contouring total GTV. Heterogeneity exists in the definition of portal vein thrombus that may impact treatment planning, especially if differential dosing is contemplated. Guidelines for HCC GTV contouring are recommended.
PURPOSE: Defining hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) gross tumor volume (GTV) requires multimodal imaging, acquired in different perfusion phases. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the variability in contouring and to establish guidelines and educational recommendations for reproducible HCC contouring for treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Anonymous, multiphasic planning computed tomography scans obtained from 3 patients with HCC were identified and distributed to a panel of 11 gastrointestinal radiation oncologists. Panelists were asked the number of HCC cases they treated in the past year. Case 1 had no vascular involvement, case 2 had extensive portal vein involvement, and case 3 had minor branched portal vein involvement. The agreement between the contoured total GTVs (primary + vascular GTV) was assessed using the generalized kappa statistic. Agreement interpretation was evaluated using Landis and Koch's interpretation of strength of agreement. The S95 contour, defined using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm consensus at the 95% confidence level, was created for each case. RESULTS: Of the 11 panelists, 3 had treated >25 cases in the past year, 2 had treated 10 to 25 cases, 2 had treated 5 to 10 cases, 2 had treated 1 to 5 cases, 1 had treated 0 cases, and 1 did not respond. Near perfect agreement was seen for case 1, and substantial agreement was seen for cases 2 and 3. For case 2, there was significant heterogeneity in the volume identified as tumor thrombus (range 0.58-40.45 cc). For case 3, 2 panelists did not include the branched portal vein thrombus, and 7 panelists contoured thrombus separately from the primary tumor, also showing significant heterogeneity in volume of tumor thrombus (range 4.52-34.27 cc). CONCLUSIONS: In a group of experts, excellent agreement was seen in contouring total GTV. Heterogeneity exists in the definition of portal vein thrombus that may impact treatment planning, especially if differential dosing is contemplated. Guidelines for HCCGTV contouring are recommended.
Authors: L A Dawson; C J McGinn; D Normolle; R K Ten Haken; S Walker; W Ensminger; T S Lawrence Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Rummeny; S Saini; J Wittenberg; C Compton; P F Hahn; P R Mueller; J F Simeone; D D Stark; R Weissleder; M G Dousset Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1989-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexis Bujold; Christine A Massey; John J Kim; James Brierley; Charles Cho; Rebecca K S Wong; Rob E Dinniwell; Zahra Kassam; Jolie Ringash; Bernard Cummings; Jenna Sykes; Morris Sherman; Jennifer J Knox; Laura A Dawson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christina Heilmaier; Amelie M Lutz; Nicolae Bolog; Dominik Weishaupt; Burkhardt Seifert; Jürgen K Willmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Masayuki Kanematsu; Richard C Semelka; Polytimi Leonardou; Maria Mastropasqua; Joseph K T Lee Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Y Yamashita; Z M Fan; H Yamamoto; T Matsukawa; S Yoshimatsu; T Miyazaki; M Sumi; M Harada; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1994 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Shearwood McClelland; Marina Chernykh; Natalia Dengina; Erin F Gillespie; Anna Likhacheva; Sergey Usychkin; Alexandr Pankratov; Ekaterina Kharitonova; Yulia Egorova; Ilya Tsimafeyeu; Sergei Tjulandin; Charles R Thomas; Timur Mitin Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: E Gkika; S Tanadini-Lang; S Kirste; P A Holzner; H P Neeff; H C Rischke; T Reese; F Lohaus; M N Duma; K Dieckmann; R Semrau; M Stockinger; D Imhoff; N Kremers; M F Häfner; N Andratschke; U Nestle; A L Grosu; M Guckenberger; T B Brunner Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael V Sherer; Diana Lin; Kartikeya Puri; Neil Panjwani; Zhigang Zhang; James D Murphy; Erin F Gillespie Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-10
Authors: Young Suk Kim; Jun Won Kim; Won Sup Yoon; Min Kyu Kang; Ik Jae Lee; Tae Hyun Kim; Jin Hee Kim; Hyung-Sik Lee; Hee Chul Park; Hong Seok Jang; Chul Seung Kay; Sang Min Yoon; Mi-Sook Kim; Jinsil Seong Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Chan Woo Wee; Wonmo Sung; Hyun-Cheol Kang; Kwan Ho Cho; Tae Jin Han; Bae-Kwon Jeong; Jae-Uk Jeong; Haeyoung Kim; In Ah Kim; Jin Hee Kim; Sung Hwan Kim; Suzy Kim; Dong Soo Lee; Me Yeon Lee; Do Hoon Lim; Hye Li Park; Chang-Ok Suh; Sang Min Yoon; Il Han Kim Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.481