4.7 Article

Interobserver variations in gross tumor volume delineation of brain tumors on computed tomography and impact of magnetic resonance imaging

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 49-59

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00371-1

关键词

brain tumor; computer tomography; magnetic resonance imaging; interobserver variation; intermodality variation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: (1) To assess the interobserver variability of brain tumor delineation on computed tomography (CT). (2) To assess the impact of the addition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) information. Methods: Nine physicians were asked to delineate the gross tumor volume (GTV) of five patients with supratentorial inoperable brain tumors on CT scans and 2 weeks (or more) later on MRIs. The delineations were performed on a computer screen. During delineation on MRI, the registered CT images (without delineation) were displayed on the screen (MRI + CT). Results: A high interobserver variability in GTV delineation on CT is found: the ratio of the largest to the smallest defined volumes varies for the five patients by factors of resp. 2.8, 1.8, 1.8, 1.9 and 1.7. The interobserver variability is as large on MRI + CT as on CT alone (ratio largest/smallest volume: 2.4, 1.7, 1.9, 2.7 and 1.5). Volumes delineated on MRI + CT (mean: 69.6 cm(2)) are larger than on CT alone (mean: 59.5 cm(3)). Residual volumes (volume delineated on one image modality but not on the other) are >0 for CT alone and for MRI + CT. Conclusions: A large interobserver variability in GTV delineation of brain tumors is demonstrated. The addition of MRI to CT does not reduce interobserver variability. GTVs delineated on MRI + CT are larger than on CT alone, but some volumes are delineated on CT and not on MRI. Therefore, a combination of the two image modalities is recommended for brain tumor delineation for treatment planning. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据