Yunfeng Cui1, Wenzhou Chen2, Feng-Ming Spring Kong3, Lindsey A Olsen4, Ronald E Beatty5, Peter G Maxim6, Timothy Ritter7, Jason W Sohn8, Jane Higgins9, James M Galvin10, Ying Xiao10. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: yunfeng.cui@duke.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, M.S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify variations in target and normal structure contouring and evaluate dosimetric impact of these variations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To study whether providing an atlas can reduce potential variation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three NSCLC cases were distributed sequentially to multiple institutions for contouring and radiation therapy planning. No segmentation atlas was provided for the first 2 cases (Case 1 and Case 2). Contours were collected from submitted plans and consensus contour sets were generated. The volume variation among institution contours and the deviation of them from consensus contours were analyzed. The dose-volume histograms for individual institution plans were recalculated using consensus contours to quantify the dosimetric changes. An atlas containing targets and critical structures was constructed and was made available when the third case (Case 3) was distributed for planning. The contouring variability in the submitted plans of Case 3 was compared with that in first 2 cases. RESULTS: Planning target volume (PTV) showed large variation among institutions. The PTV coverage in institutions' plans decreased dramatically when reevaluated using the consensus PTV contour. The PTV contouring consistency did not show improvement with atlas use in Case 3. For normal structures, lung contours presented very good agreement, while the brachial plexus showed the largest variation. The consistency of esophagus and heart contouring improved significantly (t test; P < .05) in Case 3. Major factors contributing to the contouring variation were identified through a survey questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of contouring variations in NSCLC cases was presented. Its impact on dosimetric parameters can be significant. The segmentation atlas improved the contour agreement for esophagus and heart, but not for the PTV in this study. Quality assurance of contouring is essential for a successful multi-institutional clinical trial.
PURPOSE: To quantify variations in target and normal structure contouring and evaluate dosimetric impact of these variations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To study whether providing an atlas can reduce potential variation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three NSCLC cases were distributed sequentially to multiple institutions for contouring and radiation therapy planning. No segmentation atlas was provided for the first 2 cases (Case 1 and Case 2). Contours were collected from submitted plans and consensus contour sets were generated. The volume variation among institution contours and the deviation of them from consensus contours were analyzed. The dose-volume histograms for individual institution plans were recalculated using consensus contours to quantify the dosimetric changes. An atlas containing targets and critical structures was constructed and was made available when the third case (Case 3) was distributed for planning. The contouring variability in the submitted plans of Case 3 was compared with that in first 2 cases. RESULTS: Planning target volume (PTV) showed large variation among institutions. The PTV coverage in institutions' plans decreased dramatically when reevaluated using the consensus PTV contour. The PTV contouring consistency did not show improvement with atlas use in Case 3. For normal structures, lung contours presented very good agreement, while the brachial plexus showed the largest variation. The consistency of esophagus and heart contouring improved significantly (t test; P < .05) in Case 3. Major factors contributing to the contouring variation were identified through a survey questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of contouring variations in NSCLC cases was presented. Its impact on dosimetric parameters can be significant. The segmentation atlas improved the contour agreement for esophagus and heart, but not for the PTV in this study. Quality assurance of contouring is essential for a successful multi-institutional clinical trial.
Authors: Lujun Zhao; Ming Chen; Randall Ten Haken; Indrin Chetty; Olivier Chapet; James A Hayman; Feng-Ming Kong Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Femke O B Spoelstra; Suresh Senan; Cecile Le Péchoux; Satoshi Ishikura; Francesc Casas; David Ball; Allan Price; Dirk De Ruysscher; John R van Sörnsen de Koste Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-06-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tara Rosewall; Andrew J Bayley; Peter Chung; Lisa W Le; Jason Xie; Siddhartha Baxi; Charles N Catton; Geoffrey Currie; Janelle Wheat; Michael Milosevic Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M Yamamoto; Y Nagata; K Okajima; T Ishigaki; R Murata; T Mizowaki; M Kokubo; M Hiraoka Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Isabelle Fitton; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Kenneth Gilhuijs; Joop C Duppen; Peter J C M Nowak; Marcel van Herk; Coen R N Rasch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Elizabeth Huynh; Ahmed Hosny; Christian Guthier; Danielle S Bitterman; Steven F Petit; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Benjamin Kann; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Hannah Bainbridge; Ahmed Salem; Rob H N Tijssen; Michael Dubec; Andreas Wetscherek; Corinne Van Es; Jose Belderbos; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Fiona McDonald Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-12
Authors: Raymond H Mak; Michael G Endres; Jin H Paik; Rinat A Sergeev; Hugo Aerts; Christopher L Williams; Karim R Lakhani; Eva C Guinan Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Noémie Johnston; Jeffrey De Rycke; Yolande Lievens; Marc van Eijkeren; Jan Aelterman; Eva Vandersmissen; Stephan Ponte; Barbara Vanderstraeten Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-25
Authors: Ahmed Hosny; Danielle S Bitterman; Christian V Guthier; Jack M Qian; Hannah Roberts; Subha Perni; Anurag Saraf; Luke C Peng; Itai Pashtan; Zezhong Ye; Benjamin H Kann; David E Kozono; David Christiani; Paul J Catalano; Hugo J W L Aerts; Raymond H Mak Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2022-09