Interobserver variability of radiation therapists aligning to fiducial markers for prostate radiation therapy. Issue 4 (10th April 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Deegan, Timothy; Owen, Rebecca; Holt, Tanya; Roberts, Lisa; Biggs, Jennifer; McCarthy, Alicia; Parfitt, Matthew; Fielding, Andrew
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology. Volume 57:Issue 4(2013:Aug.)
• Page Start: 519
• Page End: 523
• Publication Date: 2013-04-10
• Subjects: Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiology, Medical -- Australasia -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12055
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1754-9477

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jmiro12055-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Introduction</title> <p>As the use of fiducial markers (FMs) for the localisation of the prostate during external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has become part of routine practice, radiation therapists (RTs) have become increasingly responsible for online image interpretation. The aim of this investigation was to quantify the limits of agreement (LoA) between RTs when localising to FMs with orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) imaging.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmiro12055-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Six patients receiving prostate EBRT utilising FMs were included in this study. Treatment localisation was performed using kV imaging prior to each fraction. Online stereoscopic assessment of FMs, performed by the treating RTs, was compared with the offline assessment by three RTs. Observer agreement was determined by pairwise Bland‐Altman analysis.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmiro12055-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Stereoscopic analysis of 225 image pairs was performed online at the time of treatment, and offline by three RT observers. Eighteen pairwise Bland‐Altman analyses were completed to assess the level of agreement between observers. Localisation by RTs was found to be within clinically acceptable 95% LoAs.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmiro12055-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Small differences between RTs, in both the online and offline setting, were found to be within clinically acceptable limits. RTs were able to make consistent and reliable judgements when matching FMs on planar kV imaging.</p> </sec> </abstract>