An Inter-observer Study to Determine Radiotherapy Planning Target Volumes for Recurrent Gynaecological Cancer Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Only With Computed Tomography-Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Issue 5 (May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bernstein, D.; Taylor, A.; Nill, S.; Imseeh, G.; Kothari, G.; Llewelyn, M.; De Paepe, K.N.; Rockall, A.; Shiarli, A.-M.; Oelfke, U.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oncology. Volume 33:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 307
• Page End: 313
• Publication Date: 2021-05
• Subjects: Delineation uncertainty -- planning target volume -- radiotherapy -- recurrent gynaecological cancer; Oncology -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy; Cancer -- Treatment; Oncology; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Tumors; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.02.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0936-6555

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Target delineation uncertainty is arguably the largest source of geometric uncertainty in radiotherapy. Several factors can affect it, including the imaging modality used for delineation. It is accounted for by applying safety margins to the target to produce a planning target volume (PTV), to which treatments are designed. To determine the margin, the delineation uncertainty is measured as the delineation error, and then a margin recipe used. However, there is no published evidence of such analysis for recurrent gynaecological cancers (RGC). The aims of this study were first to quantify the delineation uncertainty for RGC gross tumour volumes (GTVs) and to calculate the associated PTV margins and then to quantify the difference in GTV, delineation uncertainty and PTV margin, between a computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) and MRI workflow. Materials and methods: Seven clinicians delineated the GTV for 20 RGC tumours on co-registered CT and MRI datasets (CT-MRI) and on MRI alone. The delineation error, the standard deviation of distances from each clinician's outline to a reference, was measured and the required PTV margin determined. Differences between using CT-MRI and MRI alone were assessed. Results: The overall delineation error and the resulting margin were 3.1 mm and 8.5 mm, respectively, for CT-MRI, reducing to 2.5 mm and 7.1 mm, respectively, for MRI alone. Delineation errors and therefore the theoretical margins, varied widely between patients. MRI tumour volumes were on average 15% smaller than CT-MRI tumour volumes. Discussion: This study is the first to quantify delineation error for RGC tumours and to calculate the corresponding PTV margin. The determined margins were larger than those reported in the literature for similar patients, bringing into question both current margins and margin calculation methods. The wide variation in delineation error between these patients suggests that applying a single population-based margin may result in PTVs that are suboptimal for many. Finally, the reduced tumour volumes and safety margins suggest that patients with RGC may benefit from an MRI-only treatment workflow. Highlights: The first paper to focus on recurrent gynaecological tumour radiotherapy targets Presents values for delineation error and the corresponding safety margins Standard methods produce margins larger than those reportedly used elsewhere Using MRI alone results in smaller target volumes than using CT and MRI together