CT scanning for definitive radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer: necessity or nicety? Results from survey of radiation oncologists working at different institutions in Australasia

Uncertainties in target volume delineation in radiotherapy - are they relevant and what can we do about them?

Background

Modern radiotherapy techniques enable delivery of high doses to the target volume without escalating dose to organs at risk, offering the possibility of better local control while preserving good quality of life. Uncertainties in target volume delineation have been demonstrated for most tumour sites, and various studies indicate that inconsistencies in target volume delineation may be larger than errors in all other steps of the treatment planning and delivery process. The aim of this paper is to summarize the degree of delineation uncertainties for different tumour sites reported in the literature and review the effect of strategies to minimize them.

Conclusions

Our review confirmed that interobserver variability in target volume contouring represents the largest uncertainty in the process for most tumour sites, potentially resulting in a systematic error in dose delivery, which could influence local control in individual patients. For most tumour sites the optimal combination of imaging modalities for target delineation still needs to be determined. Strict use of delineation guidelines and protocols is advisable both in every day clinical practice and in clinical studies to diminish interobserver variability. Continuing medical education of radiation oncologists cannot be overemphasized, intensive formal training on interpretation of sectional imaging should be included in the program for radiation oncology residents.

Observer variation in target volume delineation of lung cancer related to radiation oncologist–computer interaction: A ‘Big Brother’ evaluation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To evaluate the process of target volume delineation in lung cancer for optimization of imaging, delineation protocol and delineation software.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eleven radiation oncologists (observers) from five different institutions delineated the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) including positive lymph nodes of 22 lung cancer patients (stages I-IIIB) on CT only. All radiation oncologist-computer interactions were recorded with a tool called 'Big Brother'. For each radiation oncologist and patient the following issues were analyzed: delineation time, number of delineated points and corrections, zoom levels, level and window (L/W) settings, CT slice changes, use of side windows (coronal and sagittal) and software button use.

RESULTS

The mean delineation time per GTV was 16 min (SD 10 min). The mean delineation time for lymph node positive patients was on average 3 min larger (P = 0.02) than for lymph node negative patients. Many corrections (55%) were due to L/W change (e.g. delineating in mediastinum L/W and then correcting in lung L/W). For the lymph node region, a relatively large number of corrections was found (3.7 corr/cm2), indicating that it was difficult to delineate lymph nodes. For the tumor-atelectasis region, a relative small number of corrections was found (1.0 corr/cm2), indicating that including or excluding atelectasis into the GTV was a clinical decision. Inappropriate use of L/W settings was frequently found (e.g. 46% of all delineated points in the tumor-lung region were delineated in mediastinum L/W settings). Despite a large observer variation in cranial and caudal direction of 0.72 cm (1 SD), the coronal and sagittal side windows were not used in 45 and 60% of the cases, respectively. For the more difficult cases, observer variation was smaller when the coronal and sagittal side windows were used.

CONCLUSIONS

With the 'Big Brother' tool a method was developed to trace the delineation process. The differences between observers concerning the delineation style were large. This study led to recommendations on how to improve delineation accuracy by adapting the delineation protocol (guidelines for L/W use) and delineation software (double window with lung and mediastinum L/W settings at the same time, enforced use of coronal and sagittal views) and including FDG-PET information (lymph nodes and atelectasis).

Mantle planning: report of the Australasian Radiation Oncology Lymphoma Group film survey and consensus guidelines

The purpose of the present paper was to measure the variation in mantle planning in Australia and New Zealand. A chest X-ray (CXR) of a patient in the supine position with a neck node marked by wire was sent to every radiation oncologist in Australia and New Zealand. They were to mark on the CXR the lung blocks that they would use to treat this patient, assuming that the patient had stage IA Hodgkin's disease. These marks were compared with a small sample of radiologists who were asked to define the mediastinum on the same CXR. Radiation oncologists were also asked to complete a short questionnaire about other modifications to their treatment fields and their experience with this technique. One hundred and six films were sent out and 44 radiation oncologists replied. There was a maximum variation in the placement of their lung blocks of 6 cm. Half of the lung blocks were within a 2-cm range. One respondent said they would not use a mantle field to treat this patient. Mediastinal coverage was inadequate in at least 50% of cases. There was a very large variation in mantle field planning practices within Australia and New Zealand. For this reason Australasian Radiation Oncology Lymphoma Group has produced consensus guidelines for mantle block design. These are appended to the present paper.

Treatment and planning decisions in non-small cell carcinoma of the lung: an Australasian patterns of practice study

Fourteen practising radiation oncologists were surveyed to assess their treatment and planning habits utilizing six sample cases of non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Respondents were first given a general questionnaire, designed to evaluate their theoretical treatment and planning recommendations based on various tumour and patient related variables. Respondents then undertook a practical planning exercise utilizing planning CT and simulator radiographs for each of the six sample cases. Each case was accompanied by a brief history and report outlining specific tumour stage and non-stage related variables. The practical planning exercise was repeated on the second day of the survey utilizing different non-stage related variables but identical radiology and stage-related information. This design enabled firstly, a comparison of clinicians' intended policy and planning methods with actual policy and planning decisions, and secondly, an assessment of intra-clinician variability in decision making and planning practice. Good agreement was evident among clinicians with respect to general, non-case specific treatment policies; however, very significant variation occurred at an inter- and intra-clinician level and involved the entire treatment and planning process for individual cases. Despite identical treatment intent across identical radiological case pairings, clinicians chose widely differing margins and target volumes in their planning exercise. Treatment intent appeared to be influenced more by non-stage related variables rather than stage related information and radiological appearances per se. We have shown that experienced radiation oncologists do not adhere to stated case selection criteria and show inconsistencies in their treatment planning for non-small cell carcinoma of the lung.