The reasons for discrepancies in target volume delineation : a SASRO study on head-and-neck and prostate cancers.

PURPOSE: To understand the reasons for differences in the delineation of target volumes between physicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 18 Swiss radiooncology centers were invited to delineate volumes for one prostate and one head-and-neck case. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to evaluate the differences in the volume definition (GTV [gross tumor volume], CTV [clinical target volume], PTV [planning target volume]), the various estimated margins, and the nodes at risk. Coherence between drawn and stated margins by centers was calculated. The questionnaire also included a nonspecific series of questions regarding planning methods in each institution. RESULTS: Fairly large differences in the drawn volumes were seen between the centers in both cases and also in the definition of volumes. Correlation between drawn and stated margins was fair in the prostate case and poor in the head-and-neck case. The questionnaire revealed important differences in the planning methods between centers. CONCLUSION: These large differences could be explained by (1) a variable knowledge/interpretation of ICRU definitions, (2) variable interpretations of the potential microscopic extent, (3) difficulties in GTV identification, (4) differences in the concept, and (5) incoherence between theory (i.e., stated margins) and practice (i.e., drawn margins).

Recurrence pattern after [(18)F]fluoroethyltyrosine-positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for high-grade glioma: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: To assess the failure pattern observed after (18)F fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) planning after chemo- and radiotherapy (RT) for high-grade glioma. METHODS: All patients underwent prospectively RT planning using morphological gross tumour volumes (GTVs) and biological tumour volumes (BTVs). The post-treatment recurrence tumour volumes (RTVs) of 10 patients were transferred on their CT planning. First, failure patterns were defined in terms of percentage of RTV located outside the GTV and BTV. Second, the location of the RTV with respect to the delivered dose distribution was assessed using the RTV's DVHs. Recurrences with >95% of their volume within 95% isodose line were considered as central recurrences. Finally, the relationship between survival and GTV/BTV mismatches was assessed. RESULTS: The median percentages of RTV outside the GTV and BTV were 41.8% (range, 10.5-92.4) and 62.8% (range, 34.2-81.1), respectively. The majority of recurrences (90%) were centrally located. Using a composite target volume planning formalism, the degree of GTV and BTV mismatch did not correlate with survivorship. CONCLUSIONS: The observed failure pattern after FET-PET planning and chemo-RT is primarily central. The target mismatch-survival data suggest that using FET-PET planning may counteract the possibility of BTV-related progression, which may have a detrimental effect on survival.

Physical considerations on discrepancies in target volume delineation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the delineations and interpretations of target volumes by physicians in different radio-oncology centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven Swiss radio-oncology centers delineated volumes according to ICRU 50 recommendations for one prostate and one head and neck case. In order to evaluate the consistency of the volume delineations, the following parameters were determined: 1) the target volumes (GTV, CTV and manually expanded PTV) and their extensions in the three main axes and 2) the correlation of the volume delineated by each pair of centers using the ratio of the intersection to the union (called proximity index). RESULTS: The delineated prostate volume was 105+/-55cm(3) for the CTV and 218+/-44cm(3) for the PTV. The delineated head and neck volume was 46+/-15cm(3) for the GTV, 327+/-154cm(3) for the CTV and 528+/-106cm(3) for the PTV. The mean proximity index for the prostate case was 0.50+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.57+/-0.11 for the PTV. The proximity index for the head and neck case was 0.45+/-0.09 for the GTV, 0.42+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.59+/-0.06 for the PTV. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies between all the delineated target volumes were observed. There was an inverse relationship between the CTV volume and the margin between CTV and PTV, leading to less discrepancies in the PTV than is the CTV delineations. There was more spread in the sagittal and frontal planes due to CT pixel anisotropy, which suggests that radiation oncologists should delineate the target volumes not only in the transverse plane, but also in the sagittal and frontal planes to improve the delineation by allowing a consistency check.

Model-based Segmentation and Fusion of 3D Computed Tomography and 3D Ultrasound of the Eye for Radiotherapy Planning

Computed Tomography (CT) represents the standard imaging modality for tumor volume delineation for radiotherapy treatment planning of retinoblastoma despite some inherent limitations. CT scan is very useful in providing information on physical density for dose calculation and morphological volumetric information but presents a low sensitivity in assessing the tumor viability. On the other hand, 3D ultrasound (US) allows a highly accurate definition of the tumor volume thanks to its high spatial resolution but it is not currently integrated in the treatment planning but used only for diagnosis and follow-up. Our ultimate goal is an automatic segmentation of gross tumor volume (GTV) in the 3D US, the segmentation of the organs at risk (OAR) in the CT and the registration of both modalities. In this paper, we present some preliminary results in this direction. We present 3D active contour-based segmentation of the eye ball and the lens in CT images; the presented approach incorporates the prior knowledge of the anatomy by using a 3D geometrical eye model. The automated segmentation results are validated by comparing with manual segmentations. Then, we present two approaches for the fusion of 3D CT and US images: (i) landmark-based transformation, and (ii) object-based transformation that makes use of eye ball contour information on CT and US images.

Model-based Segmentation and Image Fusion of 3D Computed Tomography and 3D Ultrasound of the Eye for Radiotherapy Planning

For radiotherapy treatment planning of retinoblastoma inchildhood, Computed Tomography (CT) represents thestandard method for tumor volume delineation, despitesome inherent limitations. CT scan is very useful inproviding information on physical density for dosecalculation and morphological volumetric information butpresents a low sensitivity in assessing the tumorviability. On the other hand, 3D ultrasound (US) allows ahigh accurate definition of the tumor volume thanks toits high spatial resolution but it is not currentlyintegrated in the treatment planning but used only fordiagnosis and follow-up. Our ultimate goal is anautomatic segmentation of gross tumor volume (GTV) in the3D US, the segmentation of the organs at risk (OAR) inthe CT and the registration of both. In this paper, wepresent some preliminary results in this direction. Wepresent 3D active contour-based segmentation of the eyeball and the lens in CT images; the presented approachincorporates the prior knowledge of the anatomy by usinga 3D geometrical eye model. The automated segmentationresults are validated by comparing with manualsegmentations. Then, for the fusion of 3D CT and USimages, we present two approaches: (i) landmark-basedtransformation, and (ii) object-based transformation thatmakes use of eye ball contour information on CT and USimages.

The reasons for discrepancies in target volume delineation: a SASRO study on head-and-neck and prostate cancer

But : comprendre les raisons des divergences observées dans le tracé des volumes cibles entre radio-oncologues. Matériel et méthodes : 18 centres suisses de radio-oncologie ont été invités à tracer les volumes pour un cas de cancer de la prostate et pour un cas de cancer de la sphère ORL. Nous avons également envoyé un questionnaire pour évaluer d'une part les différences dans la définition- des volumes (GTV [ gross tumor volume= volume tumoral macroscopique ], CTV [clinical tumor volume= volume de la tumeur clinique, macroscopique et microscopique], PTV [planning target volume= volume cible pour la planification], et d'autre part des variations dans les marges appliquées et les ganglions considérés à risque. Pour chaque centre, on a calculé la corrélation entre les marges qui ont été dessinées et celles qui ont été annoncées. Nous avons inclus dans le questionnaire une série de questions non spécifiques pour évaluer les méthodes de planification utilisées dans les différents centres. Résultats : Dans les 2 situations cliniques, on a mis en évidence de relativement grandes différences tant au niveau des volumes dessinés par les différents centres que dans leur définition des volumes. La corrélation entre les marges dessinées et définies était assez correcte dans le cas de la prostate mais médiocre dans le cas ORL. Le questionnaire a révélé d'importantes différences dans les méthodes de planification utilisées par les centres. Conclusion : Ces grandes différences peuvent être expliquées par, (1) une connaissance/interprétation variable des définitions ICRU, (2) des appréciations différentes de l'extension tumorale microscopique potentielle, (3) des difficultés dans l'identification du GTV, (4) des différences de concept, et (5) des différences entre la théorie (par ex. la description des marges) et la pratiqué (par ex. les marges dessinées).

[(18)F]Fluoroethyltyrosine- positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for high-grade glioma.

BACKGROUND: To compare morphological gross tumor volumes (GTVs), defined as pre- and postoperative gadolinium enhancement on T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to biological tumor volumes (BTVs), defined by the uptake of (18)F fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) for the radiotherapy planning of high-grade glioma, using a dedicated positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scanner equipped with three triangulation lasers for patient positioning. METHODS: Nineteen patients with malignant glioma were included into a prospective protocol using FET PET-CT for radiotherapy planning. To be eligible, patients had to present with residual disease after surgery. Planning was performed using the clinical target volume (CTV = GTV union or logical sum BTV) and planning target volume (PTV = CTV + 20 mm). First, the interrater reliability for BTV delineation was assessed among three observers. Second, the BTV and GTV were quantified and compared. Finally, the geometrical relationships between GTV and BTV were assessed. RESULTS: Interrater agreement for BTV delineation was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.9). Although, BTVs and GTVs were not significantly different (p = 0.9), CTVs (mean 57.8 +/- 30.4 cm(3)) were significantly larger than BTVs (mean 42.1 +/- 24.4 cm(3); p < 0.01) or GTVs (mean 38.7 +/- 25.7 cm(3); p < 0.01). In 13 (68%) and 6 (32%) of 19 patients, FET uptake extended >or= 10 and 20 mm from the margin of the gadolinium enhancement. CONCLUSION: Using FET, the interrater reliability had excellent agreement for BTV delineation. With FET PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs and BTVs differed in a majority of patients.