Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2023
Recommendations for improved reproducibility of ADC derivation on behalf of the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bisgaard Anne L H, Keesman Rick, van Lier Astrid L H M W, Coolens Catherine, van Houdt Petra J, Tree Alison, Wetscherek Andreas, Romesser Paul B, Tyagi Neelam, Lo Russo Monica, Habrich Jonas, Vesprini Danny, Lau Angus Z, Mook Stella, Chung Peter, Kerkmeijer Linda G W, Gouw Zeno A R, Lorenzen Ebbe L, van der Heide Uulke A, Schytte Tine, Brink Carsten, Mahmood Faisal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a potential imaging biomarker for radiotherapy response, needs to be reproducible before translation into clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the multi-centre delineation- and calculation-related ADC variation and give recommendations to minimize it.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine centres received identical diffusion-weighted and anatomical magnetic resonance images of different cancerous tumours (adrenal gland, pelvic oligo metastasis, pancreas, and prostate). All centres delineated the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and viable tumour volume (VTV), and calculated ADCs using both their local calculation methods and each of the following calculation conditions: b-values 0-500 vs. 150-500 s/mm2, region-of-interest (ROI)-based vs. voxel-based calculation, and mean vs. median. ADC variation was assessed using the mean coefficient of variation across delineations (CVD) and calculation methods (CVC). Absolute ADC differences between calculation conditions were evaluated using Friedman's test. Recommendations for ADC calculation were formulated based on observations and discussions within the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group.
RESULTS: The median (range) CVD and CVC were 0.06 (0.02-0.32) and 0.17 (0.08-0.26), respectively. The ADC estimates differed 18% between b-value sets and 4% between ROI/voxel-based calculation (p-values < 0.01). No significant difference was observed between mean and median (p = 0.64). Aligning calculation conditions between centres reduced CVC to 0.04 (0.01-0.16). CVD was comparable between ROI types.
CONCLUSION: Overall, calculation methods had a larger impact on ADC reproducibility compared to delineation. Based on the results, significant sources of variation were identified, which should be considered when initiating new studies, in particular multi-centre investigations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine centres received identical diffusion-weighted and anatomical magnetic resonance images of different cancerous tumours (adrenal gland, pelvic oligo metastasis, pancreas, and prostate). All centres delineated the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and viable tumour volume (VTV), and calculated ADCs using both their local calculation methods and each of the following calculation conditions: b-values 0-500 vs. 150-500 s/mm2, region-of-interest (ROI)-based vs. voxel-based calculation, and mean vs. median. ADC variation was assessed using the mean coefficient of variation across delineations (CVD) and calculation methods (CVC). Absolute ADC differences between calculation conditions were evaluated using Friedman's test. Recommendations for ADC calculation were formulated based on observations and discussions within the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group.
RESULTS: The median (range) CVD and CVC were 0.06 (0.02-0.32) and 0.17 (0.08-0.26), respectively. The ADC estimates differed 18% between b-value sets and 4% between ROI/voxel-based calculation (p-values < 0.01). No significant difference was observed between mean and median (p = 0.64). Aligning calculation conditions between centres reduced CVC to 0.04 (0.01-0.16). CVD was comparable between ROI types.
CONCLUSION: Overall, calculation methods had a larger impact on ADC reproducibility compared to delineation. Based on the results, significant sources of variation were identified, which should be considered when initiating new studies, in particular multi-centre investigations.