Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2017
Interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary lung cancer and lymph nodes on different four-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions.
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.
Mercieca Susan, Belderbos José S A, De Jaeger Katrien, Schinagl Dominic A X, van der Voort Van Zijp Noëlle, Pomp Jacqueline, Theuws Jacqueline, Khalifa Jonathan, van de Vaart Paul, van Herk Marcel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The study compared interobserver variation in the delineation of the primary tumour (GTVp) and lymph nodes (GTVln) between three different 4DCT reconstruction types; Maximum Intensity Projection (MIP), Mid-Ventilation (Mid-V) and Mid-Position (Mid-P).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven radiation oncologists delineated the GTVp and GTVln on the MIP, Mid-V and Mid-P 4DCT image reconstructions of 10 lung cancer patients. The volumes, the mean standard deviation (SD) and distribution of SD (SD/area) over the median surface contour were compared for different tumour regions.
RESULTS: The overall mean delineated volume on the MIP was significantly larger (p < 0.001) than the Mid-V and Mid-P. For the GTVp the Mid-P had the lowest interobserver variation (SD = 0.261 cm), followed by Mid-V (SD = 0.314 cm) and MIP (SD = 0.330 cm) For GTVln the Mid-V had the lowest interobserver variation (SD = 0.425 cm) followed by the MIP (SD = 0.477 cm) and Mid-P (SD = 0.543 cm). The SD/area distribution showed a statistically significant difference between the MIP versus Mid-P and Mid-P versus Mid-V for both GTVp and GTVln (p < 0.001), with outliers indicating interpretation differences for GTVp located close to the mediastinum and GTVln.
CONCLUSION: The Mid-P reduced the interobserver variation for the GTVp. Delineation protocols must be improved to benefit from the improved image quality of Mid-P for the GTVln.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven radiation oncologists delineated the GTVp and GTVln on the MIP, Mid-V and Mid-P 4DCT image reconstructions of 10 lung cancer patients. The volumes, the mean standard deviation (SD) and distribution of SD (SD/area) over the median surface contour were compared for different tumour regions.
RESULTS: The overall mean delineated volume on the MIP was significantly larger (p < 0.001) than the Mid-V and Mid-P. For the GTVp the Mid-P had the lowest interobserver variation (SD = 0.261 cm), followed by Mid-V (SD = 0.314 cm) and MIP (SD = 0.330 cm) For GTVln the Mid-V had the lowest interobserver variation (SD = 0.425 cm) followed by the MIP (SD = 0.477 cm) and Mid-P (SD = 0.543 cm). The SD/area distribution showed a statistically significant difference between the MIP versus Mid-P and Mid-P versus Mid-V for both GTVp and GTVln (p < 0.001), with outliers indicating interpretation differences for GTVp located close to the mediastinum and GTVln.
CONCLUSION: The Mid-P reduced the interobserver variation for the GTVp. Delineation protocols must be improved to benefit from the improved image quality of Mid-P for the GTVln.