Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020
Comparison of CTVHR and organs at risk contours between TRUS and MR images in IB cervical cancers: a proof of concept study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Mendez Lucas C, Ravi Ananth, Martell Kevin, Raziee Hamid, Alayed Yasir, Wronski Matt, Paudel Moti, Barnes Elizabeth, Taggar Amandeep, Wong C S, Leung Eric
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare CTVHR and OAR dimensions and inter-rater agreement between magnetic resonance (MR) and trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) images in IB cervical cancer patients.
METHODS: IB cervical cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiotherapy plus MR-guided brachytherapy (BT) were prospectively enrolled in this study. Radiation oncologists contoured CTVHR and OARs in pre-BT MR images (MRI) and intra-operative TRUS images. These contours were subsequently compared in regard to volume and dimension. Contour inter-rater agreement analysis was also investigated using kappa index (KI). Stata 15.0 was used for statistical analysis and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: TRUS CTVHR volumes were statistically smaller than the respective MRI contoured volumes. TRUS CTVHR thickness was found to be consistently smaller than MRI contours in all patients. No statistical difference was seen in width and height between the two different imaging modalities. MRI contours had a median KI of 0.66 (range: 0.56-0.77) while TRUS-based contours had a median KI of 0.64 (range: 0.47-0.77). Bladder and rectum had very satisfactory KI in both imaging modalities. Vaginal contours had moderate agreement in MR (0.52) and in TRUS images (0.58).
CONCLUSION: TRUS images allow good visualization of CTVHR and OARs in IB cervical cancer patients. Inter-rater contour variability was comparable between TRUS and MR images. TRUS is a promising modality on its own for image-guided BT.
METHODS: IB cervical cancer patients treated with (chemo)radiotherapy plus MR-guided brachytherapy (BT) were prospectively enrolled in this study. Radiation oncologists contoured CTVHR and OARs in pre-BT MR images (MRI) and intra-operative TRUS images. These contours were subsequently compared in regard to volume and dimension. Contour inter-rater agreement analysis was also investigated using kappa index (KI). Stata 15.0 was used for statistical analysis and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: TRUS CTVHR volumes were statistically smaller than the respective MRI contoured volumes. TRUS CTVHR thickness was found to be consistently smaller than MRI contours in all patients. No statistical difference was seen in width and height between the two different imaging modalities. MRI contours had a median KI of 0.66 (range: 0.56-0.77) while TRUS-based contours had a median KI of 0.64 (range: 0.47-0.77). Bladder and rectum had very satisfactory KI in both imaging modalities. Vaginal contours had moderate agreement in MR (0.52) and in TRUS images (0.58).
CONCLUSION: TRUS images allow good visualization of CTVHR and OARs in IB cervical cancer patients. Inter-rater contour variability was comparable between TRUS and MR images. TRUS is a promising modality on its own for image-guided BT.