4.7 Article

Uncertainties of target volume delineation in MRI guided adaptive brachytherapy of cervix cancer: A multi-institutional study

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 6-12

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.01.014

Keywords

Cervix cancer; Brachytherapy; MRI; Delineation uncertainties

Funding

  1. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
  2. Nucletron, an Elekta company
  3. European School of Oncology (ESO)
  4. Danish Cancer Society
  5. Danish Council for Strategic Research
  6. CIRRO - the Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Interventional Research in Radiation Oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aim: We aimed to quantify target volume delineation uncertainties in cervix cancer image guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT). Materials and methods: Ten radiation oncologists delineated gross tumour volume (GTV), high- and intermediate-risk clinical target volume (HR CTV, IR CTV) in six patients. Their contours were compared with two reference delineations (STAPLE-Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation and EC- expert consensus) by calculating volumetric and planar conformity index (VCI and PCI) and inter-delineation distances (IDD). Results: VCISTAPLE and VCIEC were 0.76 and 0.72 for HR CIV, 0.77 and 0.68 for IR CTV and 0.59 and 0.58 for GTV. Variation was most prominent caudally and cranially in all target volumes and posterolaterally in IR. CTV. IDDSAMPLE and IDDEC for HR CTV (3.6 +/- 3.5 and 3.8 +/- 3.4 mm) were significantly lower than for GTV (4.8 +/- 4.2 and 4.2 +/- 3.5 mm) and IR CTV (4.7 +/- 5.2 and 5.2 +/- 5.6 mm) (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Due to lower delineation uncertainties when compared to GTV and IR CTV, HR CTV may be considered most robust volume for dose prescription and optimization in cervix cancer IGABT. Adequate imaging, training and use of contouring recommendations are main strategies to minimize delineation uncertainties. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available