| Literature DB >> 34284752 |
Jie Jiang1,2, Jinhu Chen2, Wanhu Li2, Yongqing Li2, Yiru Chen2, Zicheng Zhang2,3, Chengxin Liu2, Dan Han2, Hongfu Sun2, Baosheng Li2, Wei Huang4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tumor bed (TB) delineation based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (pre-MRI) fused with postoperative computed tomography (post-CT) were compared to post-CT only to define pre-MRI may aid in improving the accuracy of delineation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The pre-MRI imaging of 10 patients underwent radiotherapy (RT) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) were reviewed. Post-CT scans were acquired in the same prone position as pre-MRI. Pre-MRI and post-CT automatically match and then manual alignment was given to enhance fusion consistency. Three radiation oncologists and 2 radiologists delineated the clinical target volume (CTV) for CT-based. The gross target volume (GTV) of pre-MRI-based was determined by the volume of tumor acquired with 6 sequences: T1, T2, T2W-SPAIR, DWI, dyn-eTHRIVE and sdyn-eTHRIVE, expended 10 mm to form the CTV-pre-MRI. Planning target volume (PTV) for each sequence was determined by CTV extended 15 mm, trimmed to 3 mm from skin and the breast-chest wall interface. The variability of the TB delineation were developed as follows: the mean volume, conformity index (CI) and dice coefficient (DC).Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiotherapy; Tumor bed
Year: 2021 PMID: 34284752 PMCID: PMC8293511 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08546-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinical characteristics of the included 10 patients
| Patients’ characteristics | NO | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age median | ||
| ≤ 40 | 3 | 30 |
| 40–50 | 3 | 30 |
| 50–60 | 4 | 40 |
| Location | ||
| Left | 7 | 70 |
| Right | 3 | 30 |
| Pathologic T stage | ||
| T1b | 1 | 10 |
| T1c | 9 | 90 |
| Histologic grade | ||
| I | 8 | 80 |
| II | 2 | 20 |
| Pathological type | ||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 10 | 100 |
| Days from MRI to surgery(median, range) | 1,1–4 | 100 |
| Days from surgery to simulation(median, range) | 102,26–173 | 100 |
| CVS | ||
| 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | 10 |
| 3 | 5 | 50 |
| 4 | 4 | 40 |
| 5 | 0 | |
Fig. 1The delineation of target volume based on pre-MRI and post-CT drawn by one radiation oncologist, and the common and encompassing volumes of CTV drawn by 5 observers
Fig. 2Delineations of CTV defined by 3 radiation oncologists and 2 radiologists in 6 pre-MRI sequences
Mean volumes of delineation between post-CT and pre-MRI of 6 sequences
| Volume | CTV(mean ± SD) | PTV (mean ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | 33.1 ± 14.09 | 194.51 ± 53.11 | ||
| T1W | 28.76 ± 13.49 | 1.5 × 10−5 | 150.27 ± 54.47 | 2 × 10−6 |
| T2W | 27.73 ± 13.06 | 4 × 10−6 | 146.3 ± 49.33 | 1 × 10−6 |
| T2-SPAIR | 29.16 ± 12.51 | 2.5699 × 10−2 | 150.68 ± 47.19 | 1.12 × 10−4 |
| DWI | 29.25 ± 12.59 | 5.98 × 10−4 | 154.57 ± 45.59 | 7 × 10−6 |
| dyn-eTHRIVE | 27.15 ± 11.33 | 3.611 × 10−3 | 144.28 ± 41.83 | 4.9 × 10−5 |
| sdyn-eTHRIVE | 24.28 ± 10.63 | 2.72 × 10−4 | 136.04 ± 38.62 | 1.7 × 10−5 |
| F | 35.764 | 152.695 | ||
| 8.041 × 10−11 | 6.6615 × 10−18 |
P value1 were calculated by two-way analysis of Scheirer-Ray-Hare
P value2 were calculated by paird-samples T test to assess the difference between post-CT and pre-MRI sequences
The reduce rates of mean volumes and observers consistency for CTV and PTV in CT-based compared with pre-MRI-based of 6 sequences
| CT | T1W | T2W | T2W-SPAIR | DWI | dyn-eTHRIVE | sdyn-eTHRIVE | F | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CTV volume reduce% | 14.19% | 17.19% | 11.76% | 11.45% | 17.4% | 26.76% | |||
| DC | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 7.406 | 5 × 10−6 |
| CI | 0.37 | 0.54 | 0.6 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 10.076 | 8.7121 × 10−8 |
PTV volume reduce% | 24% | 26% | 23% | 21% | 26% | 30% | |||
| DC | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 4.621 | 1 × 10−3 |
| CI | 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 6.188 | 3.18 × 10−5 |
P value were calculated by one-way analysis of ANOVA to compare the differences of consistency parameters among observers
Fig. 3Bland-Altman agreement plots. Consistency of breast volume were performed by the mean breast volume for each pair of image techniques, with each point representing CTV of one observer. The upper line indicate the upper 95% limits of agreement. The middle line indicate the mean difference. The lower line indicate the lower 95% limits of agreement. The smaller the range between upper line and lower line is, the better agreement is
Fig. 4The observers variety of CTV and PTV in CVS scored 1–3 compared scored 4–5