Interobserver variability in gross tumor volume contouring in non-spine bone metastases

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The optimal imaging test for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation in non-spine bone metastases has not been defined. The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) requires accurate target delineation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or ¹⁸fludesoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) allow for better visualization of the extent of bone metastases and optimizes the accuracy of tumor delineation for stereotactic radiotherapy compared to computed tomography (CT) alone. We evaluated the interobserver agreement in GTV of non-spine bone metastases in a single center and compared MRI and/or 18FDG-PET and CT in GTV delineation.

METHODS

Anonymous CT and MRI and/or 18FDG-PET obtained from 10 non-spine bone metastases were analyzed by six radiation oncologists at our center. Images acquired by CT and MRI and/or 18FDG-PET were used to delineate 10 GTVs of non-spine bone metastases in the pelvis, extremities, and skull. The cases showed different characteristics: blastic and lytic metastases, and different primary cancers (lung, breast, prostate, rectum, urothelial, and biliary). In both CT and MRI and/or 18FDG-PET, the GTV volumes were compared. The index of agreement was evaluated according to Landis and Koch protocol.

RESULTS

The GTV volume as defined on MRI was in all cases larger or at least as large as the GTV volume on CT (P=0.25). The median GTV volume on MRI was 3.15 cc (0.027-70.64 cc) compared to 2.8 cc on CT (0.075-77.95 cc). Interobserver variance and standard deviation were lower in CT than MRI (576.3 vs. 722.2 and 24.0 vs. 26.9, respectively). The level of agreement was fair (kappa=0.36) between CT and MRI. The median GTV volume on 18FDG-PET in five patients was 5.8 cc (0.46-64.17 cc), compared to 4.1 cc on CT (0.99-54.2 cc) (P=0.236). Interobserver variance and standard deviation in CT, MRI, and 18FDG-PET were 576.3 versus 722.2 versus 730.5 and 24 versus 26.9 versus 27.0, respectively. The level of agreement was slight (kappa=0.08) between CT and 18FDG-PET.

CONCLUSIONS

Interobserver variance in non-spine bone metastases was equal when MRI and PET were compared to CT. CT was associated with the lowest variance and standard deviation. Compared to CT GTVs, the GTVs rendered from MRI images had fair agreement, while the GTVs rendered from 18FDG-PET had only slight agreement.

RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS

The delimitation of the treatment volume in non-spine bone metastases with SBRT is important for the results determining its efficacy. It is therefore essential to know the variability and to manage it to achieve the highest quality of treatment.

CT-derived liver and spleen volume accurately diagnose clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Background & Aims

Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) is a landmark in the natural history of cirrhosis, influencing clinical decisions in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Previous small series suggested that splanchnic volume measurements may predict portal hypertension. We aimed to evaluate whether volumetry obtained by standard multidetector computerised tomography (MDCT) can predict CSPH in patients with HCC.

Methods

We included 175 patients with HCC, referred for hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) evaluation, in whom contemporary MDCT was available. Liver volume, spleen volume (SV) and liver segmental volume ratio (LSVR: volume of the segments I-III/volume of the segments IV-VIII) were calculated semi-automatically from MDCT. Other non-invasive tests (NITs) were also employed.

Results

Volume parameters could be measured in almost 100% of cases with an excellent inter-observer agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.950). SV and LSVR were independently associated with CSPH (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) and did not interact with aetiology. The volume Index (VI), calculated as the product of SV and LSVR, predicted CSPH (AUC 0.83; 95% CI 0.77-0.89). Similar results were observed in an external cohort (n = 23) (AUC 0.87; 95% CI 0.69-1.00). Setting a sensitivity and specificity of 98%, VI could have avoided 35.9% of HVPG measurements. The accuracy of VI was similar to that of other NITs. VI also accurately predicted HVPG greater than 12, 14, 16 and 18 mmHg (AUC 0.81 [95% CI 0.74-0.88], 0.84 [95% CI 0.77-0.91], 0.85 [95% CI 0.77-0.92] and 0.87 [95% CI 0.79-0.94], respectively).

Conclusions

Quantification of liver and spleen volumes by MDCT is a simple, accurate and reliable method of CSPH estimation in patients with compensated cirrhosis and HCC.

Impact and implications

An increase in portal pressure strongly impacts outcomes after surgery in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Direct measurement through hepatic vein catheterization remains the reference standard for portal pressure assessment, but its invasiveness limits its application. Therefore, we evaluated the ability of CT scan-based liver and spleen volume measurements to predict portal hypertension in patients with HCC. Our results indicate that the newly described index, based on quantification of liver and spleen volume, accurately predicts portal hypertension. These results suggest that a single imaging test may be used to diagnose and stage HCC, while providing an accurate estimation of portal hypertension, thus helping to stratify surgical risks.