J Socha1, G Wołąkiewicz2, E Wasilewska-Teśluk2, P Janiga3, T Kondraciuk4, A Majewska5, K Olearski6, L Kępka2. 1. Radiotherapy Department, Regional Oncology Center, ul. Bialska 104/118, 42-200, Czestochowa, Poland. sochajoanna@wp.pl. 2. Radiotherapy Department, Independent Public Health Care Facility of the Ministry of the Interior and Warmian & Mazurian Oncology Centre, Olsztyn, Poland. 3. Radiotherapy Department, Greater Poland Cancer Center, Poznan, Poland. 4. Radiotherapy Department, Subcarpathian Cancer Center, Brzozow, Poland. 5. Radiotherapy Department, West Pomeranian Oncology Center, Szczecin, Poland. 6. Radiotherapy Department, Regional Oncology Center, Tarnów, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the main difficulties in postoperative clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: Before and after a training course, 20 radiation oncology residents were asked to delineate the CTV for the postoperative GC case on four computed tomography scans: dome of the diaphragm, anterior abdominal wall, duodenal stump and porta hepatis level, and to determine the lower CTV border. CTV volume was reconstructed from requested planar contours. Area of intersection (AI) for each requested scan and volume of intersection (VI), defined as the overlap of delineated area/volume with respective reference area (RA)/reference volume (RV) proposed by the senior radiation oncologist, were computed. The degree of agreement between the reference and participants' contours was quantified using the Concordance Index (CI): AI/RA × 100% or VI/RV × 100%. The lower CTV border was analyzed separately. Pre- and post-training CIs were compared. A questionnaire investigated the difficulties with contouring. RESULTS: Mean CI value was the lowest for the dome of the diaphragm (24% pre-training, 35 % post-training) and for the duodenal stump (49% pre-training, 61% post-training). Mean CI for the CTV volume was 49% pre-training and 59% post-training, p = 0.39. Mean distance from the reference to the participants' lower CTV borders was 2.73 cm pre-training and 2.0 cm post-training, p = 0.71. In a questionnaire, 75% of respondents indicated the elective nodal area as the main difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Delineation of the dome of the diaphragm and the duodenal stump, as yet not recognized as the source of variation, should be addressed in the international consensus guidelines and clarified.
PURPOSE: To identify the main difficulties in postoperative clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: Before and after a training course, 20 radiation oncology residents were asked to delineate the CTV for the postoperative GC case on four computed tomography scans: dome of the diaphragm, anterior abdominal wall, duodenal stump and porta hepatis level, and to determine the lower CTV border. CTV volume was reconstructed from requested planar contours. Area of intersection (AI) for each requested scan and volume of intersection (VI), defined as the overlap of delineated area/volume with respective reference area (RA)/reference volume (RV) proposed by the senior radiation oncologist, were computed. The degree of agreement between the reference and participants' contours was quantified using the Concordance Index (CI): AI/RA × 100% or VI/RV × 100%. The lower CTV border was analyzed separately. Pre- and post-training CIs were compared. A questionnaire investigated the difficulties with contouring. RESULTS: Mean CI value was the lowest for the dome of the diaphragm (24% pre-training, 35 % post-training) and for the duodenal stump (49% pre-training, 61% post-training). Mean CI for the CTV volume was 49% pre-training and 59% post-training, p = 0.39. Mean distance from the reference to the participants' lower CTV borders was 2.73 cm pre-training and 2.0 cm post-training, p = 0.71. In a questionnaire, 75% of respondents indicated the elective nodal area as the main difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Delineation of the dome of the diaphragm and the duodenal stump, as yet not recognized as the source of variation, should be addressed in the international consensus guidelines and clarified.
Authors: Edwin P M Jansen; Jasper Nijkamp; Michael Gubanski; Pehr A R M Lind; Marcel Verheij Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J S Macdonald; S R Smalley; J Benedetti; S A Hundahl; N C Estes; G N Stemmermann; D G Haller; J A Ajani; L L Gunderson; J M Jessup; J A Martenson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-09-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen R Smalley; Leonard Gunderson; Joel Tepper; James A Martenson; Bruce Minsky; Christopher Willett; Tyvin Rich Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hans T Chung; Thomas P Shakespeare; Christopher J Wynne; Jay J Lu; Rahul K Mukherjee; Michael F Back Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Oscar Matzinger; Erich Gerber; Zvi Bernstein; Philippe Maingon; Karin Haustermans; Jean François Bosset; Akos Gulyban; Philip Poortmans; Laurence Collette; Abraham Kuten Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 6.280