Cem Onal1, Mustafa Cengiz2, Ozan C Guler1, Yemliha Dolek1, Serdar Ozkok3. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Adana, Turkey. 2. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 3. 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether delineation courses for radiation oncologists improve interobserver variability in target volume delineation for post-operative gastric cancer radiotherapy planning. METHODS: 29 radiation oncologists delineated target volumes in a gastric cancer patient. An experienced radiation oncologist lectured about delineation based on contouring atlas and delineation recommendations. After the course, the radiation oncologists, blinded to the previous delineation, provided delineation for the same patient. RESULTS: The difference between delineated volumes and reference volumes for pre- and post-course clinical target volume (CTV) were 19.8% (-42.4 to 70.6%) and 12.3% (-12.0 to 27.3%) (p = 0.26), respectively. The planning target volume (PTV) differences pre- and post-course according to the reference volume were 20.5% (-40.7 to 93.7%) and 13.1% (-10.6 to 29.5%) (p = 0.30), respectively. The concordance volumes between the pre- and post-course CTVs and PTVs were 467.1 ± 89.2 vs 597.7 ± 54.6 cm3 (p < 0.001) and 738.6 ± 135.1 vs 893.2 ± 144.6 cm3 (p < 0.001), respectively. Minimum and maximum observer variations were seen at the cranial part and splenic hilus and at the caudal part of the CTV. The kappa indices compared with the reference contouring at pre- and post-course delineations were 0.68 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: The delineation course improved interobserver variability for gastric cancer. However, impact of target volume changes on toxicity and local control should be evaluated for further studies. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrated that a delineation course based on current recommendations helped physicians delineate smaller and more homogeneous target volumes. Better target volume delineation allows proper target volume irradiation and preventing unnecessary normal tissue irradiation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether delineation courses for radiation oncologists improve interobserver variability in target volume delineation for post-operative gastric cancer radiotherapy planning. METHODS: 29 radiation oncologists delineated target volumes in a gastric cancerpatient. An experienced radiation oncologist lectured about delineation based on contouring atlas and delineation recommendations. After the course, the radiation oncologists, blinded to the previous delineation, provided delineation for the same patient. RESULTS: The difference between delineated volumes and reference volumes for pre- and post-course clinical target volume (CTV) were 19.8% (-42.4 to 70.6%) and 12.3% (-12.0 to 27.3%) (p = 0.26), respectively. The planning target volume (PTV) differences pre- and post-course according to the reference volume were 20.5% (-40.7 to 93.7%) and 13.1% (-10.6 to 29.5%) (p = 0.30), respectively. The concordance volumes between the pre- and post-course CTVs and PTVs were 467.1 ± 89.2 vs 597.7 ± 54.6 cm3 (p < 0.001) and 738.6 ± 135.1 vs 893.2 ± 144.6 cm3 (p < 0.001), respectively. Minimum and maximum observer variations were seen at the cranial part and splenic hilus and at the caudal part of the CTV. The kappa indices compared with the reference contouring at pre- and post-course delineations were 0.68 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: The delineation course improved interobserver variability for gastric cancer. However, impact of target volume changes on toxicity and local control should be evaluated for further studies. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrated that a delineation course based on current recommendations helped physicians delineate smaller and more homogeneous target volumes. Better target volume delineation allows proper target volume irradiation and preventing unnecessary normal tissue irradiation.
Authors: J Socha; G Wołąkiewicz; E Wasilewska-Teśluk; P Janiga; T Kondraciuk; A Majewska; K Olearski; L Kępka Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Vincenzo Valentini; Francesco Cellini; Bruce D Minsky; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Mario Balducci; Giuseppe D'Agostino; Elisa D'Angelo; Nicola Dinapoli; Nicola Nicolotti; Chiara Valentini; Giuseppe La Torre Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Clifton D Fuller; Jasper Nijkamp; Joop C Duppen; Coen R N Rasch; Charles R Thomas; Samuel J Wang; Paul Okunieff; William E Jones; Daniel Baseman; Shilpen Patel; Carlo G N Demandante; Anna M Harris; Benjamin D Smith; Alan W Katz; Camille McGann; Jennifer L Harper; Daniel T Chang; Stephen Smalley; David T Marshall; Karyn A Goodman; Niko Papanikolaou; Lisa A Kachnic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yunfeng Cui; Wenzhou Chen; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Lindsey A Olsen; Ronald E Beatty; Peter G Maxim; Timothy Ritter; Jason W Sohn; Jane Higgins; James M Galvin; Ying Xiao Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-06-30
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: 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