Harmonization of practices between radiotherapy centres in the Nord and Pas-de-Calais regions (France): A three-year evaluation

PURPOSE

The delineation of volumes of interest can be a source of significant interobserver variability. The purpose of this study was to improve the homogeneity of delineation between oncologist-radiotherapists in the territorial departments of Nord and Pas-de-Calais (France) through discussions of clinical cases and the adoption of common published reference documents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All eleven radiotherapy centres in the Nord and Pas-de-Calais departments of France participated. The localizations assessed to date included prostate, head and neck, breast and brain cancers. For each localization, the junior or senior physician(s) in charge of pathology delineated the volumes of interest according to their usual practices. Validated indices, including the Dice similarity coefficient, were used to quantify the delineation differences. The anonymized results were presented at two to three annual meetings. A second delineation of the clinical cases was then carried out to quantify homogenization. An evaluation of dosimetry practices was also conducted for prostate cancer. Wilcoxon assay matched data were used.

RESULTS

Our work showed either satisfactory delineation concordance after the initial assessment or improved delineation concordance. For prostate cancer, the Dice similarity coefficient values were greater than 0.6 initially in two of the three clinical cases. For head and neck cancers, a statistically significant improvement was observed for only one of the clinical target volumes. More than half of the Dice similarity coefficient values were greater than 0.6 in the first comparison. The study of clinical cases of breast cancer allowed a homogenization of the delineation of five of the six lymph node clinical target volumes. The dosimetry study of prostate cancer allowed for a homogenization of practices.

CONCLUSION

This work makes it possible to harmonize the delineation practices around validated standards. An extension to the entire Hauts-de-France region is planned.

Harmonization of the Volume of Interest Delineation among All Eleven Radiotherapy Centers in the North of France

Background

Inter-observer delineation variation has been detailed for many years in almost every tumor location. Inadequate delineation can impair the chance of cure and/or increase toxicity. The aim of our original work was to prospectively improve the homogeneity of delineation among all of the senior radiation oncologists in the Nord-Pas de Calais region, irrespective of the conditions of practice.

Methods

All 11 centers were involved. The first studied cancer was prostate cancer. Three clinical cases were studied: a low-risk prostate cancer case (case 1), a high-risk prostate cancer case (pelvic nodes, case 2) and a case of post-operative biochemical elevated PSA (case 3). All of the involved physicians delineated characteristically the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk. The volumes were compared using validated indexes: the volume ratio (VR), common and additional volumes (CV and AV), volume overlap (VO) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A second delineation of the same three cases was performed after discussion of the slice results and the choice of shared guidelines to evaluate homogenization. A comparative analysis of the indexes before and after discussion was conducted using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

The indexes were not improved in case 1, for which the inter-observer agreement was considered good after the first comparison (DSC = 0.83±0.06). In case 2, the second comparison showed homogenization of the CTV delineation with a significant improvement in CV (81.4±11.7 vs. 88.6±10.26, respectively, p = 0.048), VO (0.41±0.09 vs. 0.47±0.07, respectively; p = 0.009) and DSC (0.58±0.09 vs. 0.63±0.07, respectively; p = 0.0098). In case 3, VR and AV were significantly improved: VR: 1.71(±0.6) vs. 1.34(±0.46), respectively, p = 0.0034; AV: 46.58(±14.50) vs. 38.08(±15.10), respectively, p = 0.0024. DSC was not improved, but it was already superior to 0.6 in the first comparison.

Conclusion

Our prospective work showed that a collaborative discussion about clinical cases and the choice of shared guidelines within an established framework improved the homogeneity of CTV delineation among the senior radiation oncologists in our region.