Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024
On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Pierrard Julien, Dechambre David, Massih Christel Abdel, Cvilic Sophie, Da Silva Chambel Roma Ana, Henderickx Pascale, Heylen Sofie, Longton Eleonore, Mony Romain, Tenabene Mohamed Amine, Tison Thaïs, Vandermeulen Ad, Vander Veken Loïc, Etume Aniko Wale, Yeo Anne-Emmanuella, Van Ooteghem Geneviève
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Dose-escalation radiotherapy for rectal tumours is increasingly considered as a non-operative approach, with online-adaptive radiotherapy (oART) supporting this approach by correcting inter-fraction tumour position errors. However, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided oART requires daily target volume delineation by different operators, leading to inter-operator delineation variability and potential dosimetric issues. This study aims to compare and quantify the inter-operator and inter-professional delineation variability of the rectal boost volume on CBCT, including volumes by an automatically delineated oART treatment planning system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A rectal boost volume, defined as the primary tumour extended to the entire adjacent rectal wall, was delineated on 10 CBCTs from 5 patients by 15 operators: 4 expert radiation oncologists (ROs), 4 radiation therapists (RTTs) and 7 non-expert ROs. These contours were compared between the different professional groups. A comparison to the average volume of the group (ROs, RTTs, or non-expert ROs) with the lowest delineation variability was also performed for each individual volume including the volume automatically generated by an oART treatment planning system.
RESULTS: Delineation variability was the highest in the superior (range: 2.3-6.0 mm), and inferior (2.3-12.4 mm) directions, compared to the left (0.2-4.4 mm), right (0.3-2.0 mm), anterior (0.1-2.9 mm), and posterior (0.5-4.0 mm) directions. Non-expert ROs, RTTs, and automatic oART volume showed similar ranges of delineation errors when compared to the expert ROs' volume, which was chosen as reference volume since this professional group showed the lowest variability.
DISCUSSION: Expert ROs showed consistent results. Other professional groups exhibit similar variability, comparable to the automatic oART volume. Therefore, RTTs could safely perform the rectal boost delineation without non-expert ROs supervision in the absence of expert ROs during CBCT-based oART. Moreover, these findings provide quantitative data to compute accurate margins for the rectal boost planning target volume in a CBCT-guided oART workflow.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A rectal boost volume, defined as the primary tumour extended to the entire adjacent rectal wall, was delineated on 10 CBCTs from 5 patients by 15 operators: 4 expert radiation oncologists (ROs), 4 radiation therapists (RTTs) and 7 non-expert ROs. These contours were compared between the different professional groups. A comparison to the average volume of the group (ROs, RTTs, or non-expert ROs) with the lowest delineation variability was also performed for each individual volume including the volume automatically generated by an oART treatment planning system.
RESULTS: Delineation variability was the highest in the superior (range: 2.3-6.0 mm), and inferior (2.3-12.4 mm) directions, compared to the left (0.2-4.4 mm), right (0.3-2.0 mm), anterior (0.1-2.9 mm), and posterior (0.5-4.0 mm) directions. Non-expert ROs, RTTs, and automatic oART volume showed similar ranges of delineation errors when compared to the expert ROs' volume, which was chosen as reference volume since this professional group showed the lowest variability.
DISCUSSION: Expert ROs showed consistent results. Other professional groups exhibit similar variability, comparable to the automatic oART volume. Therefore, RTTs could safely perform the rectal boost delineation without non-expert ROs supervision in the absence of expert ROs during CBCT-based oART. Moreover, these findings provide quantitative data to compute accurate margins for the rectal boost planning target volume in a CBCT-guided oART workflow.