Delineating brachial plexus, cochlea, pharyngeal constrictor muscles and optic chiasm in head and neck radiotherapy: a CT-based model atlas

Delineation of organs at risk

The delineation of organs at risk is the basis of radiotherapy oncologists' work. Indeed, the knowledge of this delineation enables to better identify the target volumes and to optimize dose distribution, involving the prognosis of the patients but also their future. The learning of this delineation must continue throughout the clinician's career. Some contour changes have appeared with better imaging, some volumes are now required due to development of knowledge of side effects. In addition, the increasing survival time of patients requires to be more systematic and precise in the delineations, both to avoid complications until now exceptional but also because re-irradiations are becoming more and more frequent. We present the update of the recommendations of the French Society for Radiation Oncology (SFRO) on new findings or adaptations to volumes at risk.

Interobserver variability in organ at risk delineation in head and neck cancer

Background

In radiotherapy inaccuracy in organ at risk (OAR) delineation can impact treatment plan optimisation and treatment plan evaluation. Brouwer et al. showed significant interobserver variability (IOV) in OAR delineation in head and neck cancer (HNC) and published international consensus guidelines (ICG) for OAR delineation in 2015. The aim of our study was to evaluate IOV in the presence of these guidelines.

Methods

HNC radiation oncologists (RO) from each Belgian radiotherapy centre were invited to complete a survey and submit contours for 5 HNC cases. Reference contours (OARref) were obtained by a clinically validated artificial intelligence-tool trained using ICG. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD) and 95% Hausdorff distances (HD95) were used for comparison.

Results

Fourteen of twenty-two RO (64%) completed the survey and submitted delineations. Thirteen (93%) confirmed the use of delineation guidelines, of which six (43%) used the ICG. The OARs whose delineations agreed best with the OARref were mandible [median DSC 0.9, range (0.8–0.9); median MSD 1.1 mm, range (0.8–8.3), median HD95 3.4 mm, range (1.5–38.7)], brainstem [median DSC 0.9 (0.6–0.9); median MSD 1.5 mm (1.1–4.0), median HD95 4.0 mm (2.3–15.0)], submandibular glands [median DSC 0.8 (0.5–0.9); median MSD 1.2 mm (0.9–2.5), median HD95 3.1 mm (1.8–12.2)] and parotids [median DSC 0.9 (0.6–0.9); median MSD 1.9 mm (1.2–4.2), median HD95 5.1 mm (3.1–19.2)]. Oral cavity, cochleas, PCMs, supraglottic larynx and glottic area showed more variation. RO who used the consensus guidelines showed significantly less IOV (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Although ICG for delineation of OARs in HNC exist, they are only implemented by about half of RO participating in this study, which partly explains the delineation variability. However, this study highlights that guidelines alone do not suffice to eliminate IOV and that more effort needs to be done to accomplish further treatment standardisation, for example with artificial intelligence.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s13014-020-01677-2.

Development of a contouring guide for three different types of optic chiasm: A practical approach

INTRODUCTION

Sparing of the organs at risk (OARs) is a crucial task in daily radiotherapy practice. Irradiation of the optic chiasm (OC) results in radiation-induced optic neuropathy (RION). The structure of the OC is complex, and OC morphology can vary in axial images. Therefore, a standard atlas can result in inaccurate descriptions of OC morphology in different patients. The aim of our study was to provide a guide based on computed tomography (CT) for the delineation of different types of OC.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients were selected to participate in our study. These patients underwent CT analysis of the brain, head and neck regions in a supine position. Axial images 3 mm in thickness were obtained at 3-mm intervals. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study was also performed using the same set-up. The OC was then delineated. The contours were revised by three neuroradiologists and nine radiation oncologists with > 5 years of expertise.

RESULTS

Three types of OC were distinguished by magnetic resonance (MR). The location and boundaries of normal, prefixed and postfixed chiasms were developed with a CT-based atlas. Discrepancies were observed in the delineation of the prefixed and postfixed OC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our guide allows improved definitions of the anatomical boundaries for different types of OC. Our experience could provide useful information for radiation oncologists in daily practice.

Unilateral cochlea sparing in locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: a planning study

BACKGROUND

Cochlea sparing can reduce late ototoxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy. In this situation, a mean cochlear dose (MCD) constraint of 10 Gy has been suggested by others based on the dose-effect relationship of clinical data. We aimed to investigate whether this is feasible for primary and postoperative radiochemotherapy in locoregionally advanced tumors without compromising target coverage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten patients treated with definitive and ten patients treated with adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy were investigated. The cochleae and a planning risk volume (PRV) with a 3 mm margin were newly delineated, whereas target volumes and other organs at risk were not changed. The initial plan was recalculated with a constraint of 10 Gy (MCD) on the low-risk side. The quality of the resulting plan was evaluated using the difference in the equivalent uniform dose (EUD).

RESULTS

A unilateral MCD of below 10 Gy could be achieved in every patient. The mean MCD was 6.8 Gy in the adjuvant cohort and 7.6 Gy in the definitive cohort, while the non-spared side showed a mean MCD of 18.7 and 30.3 Gy, respectively. The mean PRV doses were 7.8 and 8.4 Gy for the spared side and 18.5 and 29.8 Gy for the non-spared side, respectively. The mean EUD values of the initial and recalculated plans were identical. Target volume was not compromised.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral cochlea sparing with an MCD of less than 10 Gy is feasible without compromising the target volume or dose coverage in locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with IMRT. A prospective evaluation of the clinical benefit of this approach as well as further investigation of the dose-response relationship for future treatment modification appears promising.

Development of a contouring guide in three different head set-ups for hippocampal sparing radiotherapy: a practical approach

BACKGROUNDS

Irradiation of the hippocampus plays a role in neurocognitive toxicity. Its delineation is complex and in practice different head position can vary hippocampus morphology on axial images; so atlas in a single standard position can result ineffective to describe different hippocampal morphologies in different head set-up. The purpose of our study was to develop a guide based on magnetic resonance imaging for hippocampus delineation in three different head set-ups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three patients were selected to elaborate our guide. Patients were submitted to a planning computed tomography of the brain district in different head positions: 1° patient in neutral, 2° patient in over-extended and 3° patient in head hypo-extended position; axial images of 2-mm thickness were obtained. Computed tomography images were fused with diagnostic brain magnetic resonance images; then hippocampus was delineated according to RTOG atlas. Contours were revised by two neuro-radiologists with >5-year expertise in neuroimaging.

RESULTS

A guide was developed for each of three head positions considered. RTOG atlas provided an easy and reliable guide for hippocampus delineation in neutral position of the head. Discrepancies were observed in cranial and caudal limit in case of head over/hypo-extension, as well as in hippocampal morphology near the encephalic trunk where hippocampus takes an oblong shape in over-extended set-up, and short and stocky in hypo-extension.

CONCLUSION

Our guide can represent a useful tool for hippocampal delineation in clinical practice and for different anatomic variations due to different head positions. Certainly, it should be validated in practice.