The impact of organ-at-risk contour variations on automatically generated treatment plans for NSCLC. (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vaassen, Femke; Hazelaar, Colien; Canters, Richard; Peeters, Stephanie; Petit, Steven; van Elmpt, Wouter
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 163(2021)
• Page Start: 136
• Page End: 142
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: Radiotherapy -- Automatic contouring -- Automatic planning -- Delineation inaccuracies -- Dosimetric differences -- Intra-observer variability; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: Quantification of the effect of contouring inaccuracies on plan optimization. Dose differences from (auto-)contouring are similar to intra-observer variability. Heart requires checking and adjusting when overlapping with PTV. OARs with max dose constraints require checking and adjustment when close to target. Abstract: Background and purpose: Quality of automatic contouring is generally assessed by comparison with manual delineations, but the effect of contour differences on the resulting dose distribution remains unknown. This study evaluated dosimetric differences between treatment plans optimized using various organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring methods. Materials and methods: OARs of twenty lung cancer patients were manually and automatically contoured, after which user-adjustments were made. For each contour set, an automated treatment plan was generated. The dosimetric effect of intra-observer contour variation and the influence of contour variations on treatment plan evaluation and generation were studied using dose-volume histogram (DVH)-parameters for thoracic OARs. Results: Dosimetric effect of intra-observer contour variability was highest for Heart Dmax (3.4 ± 6.8 Gy) and lowest for Lungs-GTV Dmean (0.3 ± 0.4 Gy). The effect of contour variation on treatment plan evaluation was highest for Heart Dmax (6.0 ± 13.4 Gy) and Esophagus Dmax (8.7 ± 17.2 Gy). Dose differences for the various treatment plans, evaluated on the reference (manual) contour, were on average below 1 Gy/1%. For Heart Dmean, higher dose differences were found for overlap with PTV (median 0.2 Gy, 95% 1.7 Gy) vs. no PTV overlap (median 0 Gy, 95% 0.5 Gy). For Dmax -parameters, largest dose difference was found between 0–1 cm distance to PTV (median 1.5 Gy, 95% 4.7 Gy). Conclusion: Dose differences arising from automatic contour variations were of the same magnitude or lower than intra-observer contour variability. For Heart Dmean, we recommend delineation errors to be corrected when the heart overlaps with the PTV. For Dmax -parameters, we recommend checking contours if the distance is close to PTV (<5 cm). For the lungs, only obvious large errors need to be adjusted.