An interobserver study of prostatic fossa clinical target volume delineation in clinical practice: are regions of recurrence adequately targeted?

Pretrial Quality Assurance for Hypofractionated Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy in the Multi-Institutional PERYTON-trial

Purpose

The PERYTON trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial that will investigate whether the treatment outcome of salvage external beam radiation therapy (sEBRT) will be improved with hypofractionated radiation therapy. A pretrial quality assurance (QA) program was undertaken to ensure protocol compliance within the PERYTON trial and to assess variation in sEBRT treatment protocols between the participating centers.

Methods and Materials

Completion of the QA program was mandatory for each participating center (N = 8) to start patient inclusion. The pretrial QA program included (1) a questionnaire on the center-specific sEBRT protocol, (2) a delineation exercise of the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk, and (3) a treatment planning exercise. All contours were analyzed using the pairwise dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and the 50th and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD50 and HD95, respectively). The submitted treatment plans were reviewed for protocol compliance.

Results

The results of the questionnaire showed that high-quality, state-of-the-art radiation therapy techniques were used in the participating centers and identified variations of the sEBRT protocols used concerning the position verification and preparation techniques. The submitted CTVs showed significant variation, with a range in volume of 29 cm3 to 167 cm3, a mean pairwise DSC of 0.52, and a mean HD50 and HD95 of 2.3 mm and 24.4 mm, respectively. Only in 1 center the treatment plan required adaptation before meeting all constraints of the PERYTON protocol.

Conclusions

The pretrial QA of the PERYTON trial demonstrated that high-quality, but variable, radiation techniques were used in the 8 participating centers. The treatment planning exercise confirmed that the dose constraints of the PERYTON protocol were feasible for all participating centers. The observed variation in CTV delineation led to agreement on a new (image-based) delineation guideline to be used by all participating centers within the PERYTON trial.

Delineation of the Prostate Bed: The "Invisible Target" Is Still an Issue?

For pathological high-risk prostate cancer, adjuvant irradiation has shown a survival benefit. Phase III studies have highlighted that half men would face biochemical relapse and would be candidate for radiotherapy at adjuvant or salvage times. Despite at least four published international contouring guidelines from different collaborative groups, discrepancies remain for volumes, delineation, and margins to be considered in order to optimize radiotherapy planning. This article from “Groupe d’Etude des Tumeurs UroGénitales (GETUG)” members will focus on controversies to help clinicians to create best volume delineation for adjuvant or salvage post prostatectomy radiotherapy.

Uncertainties in volume delineation in radiation oncology: A systematic review and recommendations for future studies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Volume delineation is a well-recognised potential source of error in radiotherapy. Whilst it is important to quantify the degree of interobserver variability (IOV) in volume delineation, the resulting impact on dosimetry and clinical outcomes is a more relevant endpoint. We performed a literature review of studies evaluating IOV in target volume and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation in order to analyse these with respect to the metrics used, reporting of dosimetric consequences, and use of statistical tests.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Medline and Pubmed databases were queried for relevant articles using keywords. We included studies published in English between 2000 and 2014 with more than two observers.

RESULTS

119 studies were identified covering all major tumour sites. CTV (n=47) and GTV (n=38) were most commonly contoured. Median number of participants and data sets were 7 (3-50) and 9 (1-132) respectively. There was considerable heterogeneity in the use of metrics and methods of analysis. Statistical analysis of results was reported in 68% (n=81) and dosimetric consequences in 21% (n=25) of studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consistency in conducting and reporting analyses from IOV studies. We suggest a framework to use for future studies evaluating IOV.

A survey of radiation treatment planning peer-review activities in a provincial radiation oncology programme: current practice and future directions

OBJECTIVES

To describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement.

DESIGN

A survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres.

SETTING

All cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency.

PARTICIPANTS

A delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Rated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes.

RESULTS

14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.

Technology assessment of automated atlas based segmentation in prostate bed contouring

Background

Prostate bed (PB) contouring is time consuming and associated with inter-observer variability. We evaluated an automated atlas-based segmentation (AABS) engine in its potential to reduce contouring time and inter-observer variability.

Methods

An atlas builder (AB) manually contoured the prostate bed, rectum, left femoral head (LFH), right femoral head (RFH), bladder, and penile bulb of 75 post-prostatectomy cases to create an atlas according to the recent RTOG guidelines. 5 other Radiation Oncologists (RO) and the AABS contoured 5 new cases. A STAPLE contour for each of the 5 patients was generated. All contours were anonymized and sent back to the 5 RO to be edited as clinically necessary. All contouring times were recorded. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to evaluate the unedited- and edited- AABS and inter-observer variability among the RO. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests and a Pearson correlation were performed. ANOVA analysis using logit transformations of DSC values was calculated to assess inter-observer variability.

Results

The mean time for manual contours and AABS was 17.5- and 14.1 minutes respectively (p = 0.003). The DSC results (mean, SD) for the comparison of the unedited-AABS versus STAPLE contours for the PB (0.48, 0.17), bladder (0.67, 0.19), LFH (0.92, 0.01), RFH (0.92, 0.01), penile bulb (0.33, 0.25) and rectum (0.59, 0.11). The DSC results (mean, SD) for the comparison of the edited-AABS versus STAPLE contours for the PB (0.67, 0.19), bladder (0.88, 0.13), LFH (0.93, 0.01), RFH (0.92, 0.01), penile bulb (0.54, 0.21) and rectum (0.78, 0.12). The DSC results (mean, SD) for the comparison of the edited-AABS versus the expert panel for the PB (0.47, 0.16), bladder (0.67, 0.18), LFH (0.83, 0.18), RFH (0.83, 0.17), penile bulb (0.31, 0.23) and rectum (0.58, 0.09). The DSC results (mean, SD) for the comparison of the STAPLE contours and the 5 RO are PB (0.78, 0.15), bladder (0.96, 0.02), left femoral head (0.87, 0.19), right femoral head (0.87, 0.19), penile bulb (0.70, 0.17) and the rectum (0.89, 0.06). The ANOVA analysis suggests inter-observer variability among at least one of the 5 RO (p value = 0.002).

Conclusion

The AABS tool results in a time savings, and when used to generate auto-contours for the femoral heads, bladder and rectum had superior to good spatial overlap. However, the generated auto-contours for the prostate bed and penile bulb need improvement.