Reduced inter-observer and intra-observer delineation variation in esophageal cancer radiotherapy by use of fiducial markers
van Hooft, J
van Herk, Marcel
AffiliationDepartment of Radiation Oncology , Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam , Amsterdam
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractOBJECTIVE: Delineation variation of esophageal tumors remains a large source of geometric uncertainty. In the present study, we investigated the inter- and intra-observer variation in esophageal gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the impact of endoscopically implanted fiducial markers on these variations. MATERIAL/METHODS: Ten esophageal cancer patients with at least two markers endoscopically implanted at the cranial and caudal tumor borders and visible on the planning computed tomography (pCT) were included in this study. Five dedicated gastrointestinal radiation oncologists independently delineated GTVs on the pCT without markers and with markers. The GTV was first delineated on pCTs where markers were digitally removed and next on the original pCT with markers. Both delineation series were executed twice to determine intra-observer variation. For both the inter- and intra-observer analyses, the generalized conformity index (CIgen), and the standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces (i.e., overall, longitudinal, and radial SDs) were calculated. Linear mixed-effect models were used to compare the without and with markers series (??=?0.05). RESULTS: Both the inter- and intra-observer CIgen were significantly larger in the series with markers than in the series without markers (p?<?.001). For the series without markers vs. with markers, the inter-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.63?cm vs. 0.22?cm, 1.44?cm vs. 0.42?cm, and 0.26?cm vs. 0.18?cm, respectively (p?<?.05); moreover, the intra-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.45?cm vs. 0.26?cm, 1.10?cm vs. 0.41?cm, and 0.22?cm vs. 0.15?cm, respectively (p?<?.05). CONCLUSION: The presence of markers at the cranial and caudal tumor borders significantly reduced both inter- and intra-observer GTV delineation variation, especially in the longitudinal direction. Our results endorse the use of markers in GTV delineation for esophageal cancer patients.
CitationMachiels M, Jin P, van Hooft JE, Gurney-Champion OJ, Jelvehgaran P, Geijsen ED, et al. Reduced inter-observer and intra-observer delineation variation in esophageal cancer radiotherapy by use of fiducial markers. Acta Oncol. 2019 Mar 25:1-8.
- Reduction of observer variation using matched CT-PET for lung cancer delineation: a three-dimensional analysis.
- Authors: Steenbakkers RJ, Duppen JC, Fitton I, Deurloo KE, Zijp LJ, Comans EF, Uitterhoeve AL, Rodrigus PT, Kramer GW, Bussink J, De Jaeger K, Belderbos JS, Nowak PJ, van Herk M, Rasch CR
- Issue date: 2006 Feb 1
- Magnetic resonance imaging in the radiation treatment planning of localized prostate cancer using intra-prostatic fiducial markers for computed tomography co-registration.
- Authors: Parker CC, Damyanovich A, Haycocks T, Haider M, Bayley A, Catton CN
- Issue date: 2003 Feb
- Considerable interobserver variation in delineation of pancreatic cancer on 3DCT and 4DCT: a multi-institutional study.
- Authors: Versteijne E, Gurney-Champion OJ, van der Horst A, Lens E, Kolff MW, Buijsen J, Ebrahimi G, Neelis KJ, Rasch CR, Stoker J, van Herk M, Bel A, van Tienhoven G
- Issue date: 2017 Mar 23
- Inter-observer agreement in GTV delineation of bone metastases on CT and impact of MR imaging: A multicenter study.
- Authors: Gerlich AS, van der Velden JM, Kotte ANTJ, Tseng CL, Fanetti G, Eppinga WSC, Kasperts N, Intven MPW, Pameijer FA, Philippens MEP, Verkooijen HM, Seravalli E
- Issue date: 2018 Mar
- Impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on computed tomography defined target volumes in radiation treatment planning of esophageal cancer: reduction in geographic misses with equal inter-observer variability: PET/CT improves esophageal target definition.
- Authors: Schreurs LM, Busz DM, Paardekooper GM, Beukema JC, Jager PL, Van der Jagt EJ, van Dam GM, Groen H, Plukker JT, Langendijk JA
- Issue date: 2010 Aug