Oliver J Gurney-Champion1,2, Eva Versteijne1, Astrid van der Horst1, Eelco Lens1, Heidi Rütten3, Hanne D Heerkens4, Gabriel M R M Paardekooper5, Maaike Berbee6, Coen R N Rasch1, Jaap Stoker2, Marc R W Engelbrecht2, Marcel van Herk7, Aart J Nederveen2, Remy Klaassen8, Hanneke W M van Laarhoven8, Geertjan van Tienhoven1, Arjan Bel1. 1. a Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands. 2. b Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands. 3. c Department of Radiation Oncology , Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen , the Netherlands. 4. d Department of Radiotherapy , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , the Netherlands. 5. e Department of Radiotherapy , Isala Clinics Zwolle , Zwolle , the Netherlands. 6. f Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology , Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht , the Netherlands. 7. g Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, Division of Cancer Sciences , University of Manchester and Christie NHS Trust , Manchester , UK. 8. h Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside the planning computed tomography (CT) scan on target volume delineation in pancreatic cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight observers (radiation oncologists) from six institutions delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV) on 3DCT, and internal GTV (iGTV) on 4DCT of four pancreatic cancer patients, while MRI was available in a second window (CT + MRI). Variations in volume, generalized conformity index (CIgen), and overall observer variation, expressed as standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces, were analyzed. CIgen is a measure of overlap of the delineated iGTVs (1 = full overlap, 0 = no overlap). Results were compared with those from an earlier study that assessed the interobserver variation by the same observers on the same patients on CT without MRI (CT-only). RESULTS: The maximum ratios between delineated volumes within a patient were 6.1 and 22.4 for the GTV (3DCT) and iGTV (4DCT), respectively. The average (root-mean-square) overall observer variations were SD = 0.41 cm (GTV) and SD = 0.73 cm (iGTV). The mean CIgen was 0.36 for GTV and 0.37 for iGTV. When compared to the iGTV delineated on CT-only, the mean volumes of the iGTV on CT + MRI were significantly smaller (32%, Wilcoxon signed-rank, p < .0005). The median volumes of the iGTV on CT + MRI were included for 97% and 92% in the median volumes of the iGTV on CT. Furthermore, CT + MRI showed smaller overall observer variations (root-mean-square SD = 0.59 cm) in six out of eight delineated structures compared to CT-only (root-mean-square SD = 0.72 cm). However, large local observer variations remained close to biliary stents and pathological lymph nodes, indicating issues with instructions and instruction compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of MRI images during target delineation of pancreatic cancer on 3DCT and 4DCT resulted in smaller target volumes and reduced the interobserver variation in six out of eight delineated structures.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside the planning computed tomography (CT) scan on target volume delineation in pancreatic cancerpatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight observers (radiation oncologists) from six institutions delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV) on 3DCT, and internal GTV (iGTV) on 4DCT of four pancreatic cancerpatients, while MRI was available in a second window (CT + MRI). Variations in volume, generalized conformity index (CIgen), and overall observer variation, expressed as standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces, were analyzed. CIgen is a measure of overlap of the delineated iGTVs (1 = full overlap, 0 = no overlap). Results were compared with those from an earlier study that assessed the interobserver variation by the same observers on the same patients on CT without MRI (CT-only). RESULTS: The maximum ratios between delineated volumes within a patient were 6.1 and 22.4 for the GTV (3DCT) and iGTV (4DCT), respectively. The average (root-mean-square) overall observer variations were SD = 0.41 cm (GTV) and SD = 0.73 cm (iGTV). The mean CIgen was 0.36 for GTV and 0.37 for iGTV. When compared to the iGTV delineated on CT-only, the mean volumes of the iGTV on CT + MRI were significantly smaller (32%, Wilcoxon signed-rank, p < .0005). The median volumes of the iGTV on CT + MRI were included for 97% and 92% in the median volumes of the iGTV on CT. Furthermore, CT + MRI showed smaller overall observer variations (root-mean-square SD = 0.59 cm) in six out of eight delineated structures compared to CT-only (root-mean-square SD = 0.72 cm). However, large local observer variations remained close to biliary stents and pathological lymph nodes, indicating issues with instructions and instruction compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of MRI images during target delineation of pancreatic cancer on 3DCT and 4DCT resulted in smaller target volumes and reduced the interobserver variation in six out of eight delineated structures.
Authors: Rosie J Goodburn; Marielle E P Philippens; Thierry L Lefebvre; Aly Khalifa; Tom Bruijnen; Joshua N Freedman; David E J Waddington; Eyesha Younus; Eric Aliotta; Gabriele Meliadò; Teo Stanescu; Wajiha Bano; Ali Fatemi-Ardekani; Andreas Wetscherek; Uwe Oelfke; Nico van den Berg; Ralph P Mason; Petra J van Houdt; James M Balter; Oliver J Gurney-Champion Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Dualta McQuaid; Alex Dunlop; Kee H Wong; Liam C Welsh; Angela M Riddell; Dow-Mu Koh; Uwe Oelfke; Martin O Leach; Christopher M Nutting; Shreerang A Bhide; Kevin J Harrington; Rafal Panek; Kate L Newbold Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eva Versteijne; Eelco Lens; Astrid van der Horst; Arjan Bel; Jorrit Visser; Cornelis J A Punt; Mustafa Suker; Casper H J van Eijck; Geertjan van Tienhoven Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Oliver J Gurney-Champion; David J Collins; Andreas Wetscherek; Mihaela Rata; Remy Klaassen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Kevin J Harrington; Uwe Oelfke; Matthew R Orton Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yihang Zhou; Jing Yuan; Oi Lei Wong; Winky Wing Ki Fung; Ka Fai Cheng; Kin Yin Cheung; Siu Ki Yu Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2018-10
Authors: Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Remy Klaassen; Martijn Froeling; Sebastiano Barbieri; Jaap Stoker; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Johanna W Wilmink; Marc G Besselink; Arjan Bel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Aart J Nederveen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Duncan den Boer; Johannes K Veldman; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Arjan Bel; Zdenko van Kesteren Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-26 Impact factor: 3.481