Interobserver variability in organ at risk delineation in head and neck cancer.


Journal

Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Jun 2021
Historique:
received: 01 07 2020
accepted: 24 09 2020
entrez: 29 6 2021
pubmed: 30 6 2021
medline: 22 12 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In radiotherapy inaccuracy in organ at risk (OAR) delineation can impact treatment plan optimisation and treatment plan evaluation. Brouwer et al. showed significant interobserver variability (IOV) in OAR delineation in head and neck cancer (HNC) and published international consensus guidelines (ICG) for OAR delineation in 2015. The aim of our study was to evaluate IOV in the presence of these guidelines. HNC radiation oncologists (RO) from each Belgian radiotherapy centre were invited to complete a survey and submit contours for 5 HNC cases. Reference contours (OARref) were obtained by a clinically validated artificial intelligence-tool trained using ICG. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD) and 95% Hausdorff distances (HD95) were used for comparison. Fourteen of twenty-two RO (64%) completed the survey and submitted delineations. Thirteen (93%) confirmed the use of delineation guidelines, of which six (43%) used the ICG. The OARs whose delineations agreed best with the OARref were mandible [median DSC 0.9, range (0.8-0.9); median MSD 1.1 mm, range (0.8-8.3), median HD95 3.4 mm, range (1.5-38.7)], brainstem [median DSC 0.9 (0.6-0.9); median MSD 1.5 mm (1.1-4.0), median HD95 4.0 mm (2.3-15.0)], submandibular glands [median DSC 0.8 (0.5-0.9); median MSD 1.2 mm (0.9-2.5), median HD95 3.1 mm (1.8-12.2)] and parotids [median DSC 0.9 (0.6-0.9); median MSD 1.9 mm (1.2-4.2), median HD95 5.1 mm (3.1-19.2)]. Oral cavity, cochleas, PCMs, supraglottic larynx and glottic area showed more variation. RO who used the consensus guidelines showed significantly less IOV (p = 0.008). Although ICG for delineation of OARs in HNC exist, they are only implemented by about half of RO participating in this study, which partly explains the delineation variability. However, this study highlights that guidelines alone do not suffice to eliminate IOV and that more effort needs to be done to accomplish further treatment standardisation, for example with artificial intelligence.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In radiotherapy inaccuracy in organ at risk (OAR) delineation can impact treatment plan optimisation and treatment plan evaluation. Brouwer et al. showed significant interobserver variability (IOV) in OAR delineation in head and neck cancer (HNC) and published international consensus guidelines (ICG) for OAR delineation in 2015. The aim of our study was to evaluate IOV in the presence of these guidelines.
METHODS METHODS
HNC radiation oncologists (RO) from each Belgian radiotherapy centre were invited to complete a survey and submit contours for 5 HNC cases. Reference contours (OARref) were obtained by a clinically validated artificial intelligence-tool trained using ICG. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD) and 95% Hausdorff distances (HD95) were used for comparison.
RESULTS RESULTS
Fourteen of twenty-two RO (64%) completed the survey and submitted delineations. Thirteen (93%) confirmed the use of delineation guidelines, of which six (43%) used the ICG. The OARs whose delineations agreed best with the OARref were mandible [median DSC 0.9, range (0.8-0.9); median MSD 1.1 mm, range (0.8-8.3), median HD95 3.4 mm, range (1.5-38.7)], brainstem [median DSC 0.9 (0.6-0.9); median MSD 1.5 mm (1.1-4.0), median HD95 4.0 mm (2.3-15.0)], submandibular glands [median DSC 0.8 (0.5-0.9); median MSD 1.2 mm (0.9-2.5), median HD95 3.1 mm (1.8-12.2)] and parotids [median DSC 0.9 (0.6-0.9); median MSD 1.9 mm (1.2-4.2), median HD95 5.1 mm (3.1-19.2)]. Oral cavity, cochleas, PCMs, supraglottic larynx and glottic area showed more variation. RO who used the consensus guidelines showed significantly less IOV (p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Although ICG for delineation of OARs in HNC exist, they are only implemented by about half of RO participating in this study, which partly explains the delineation variability. However, this study highlights that guidelines alone do not suffice to eliminate IOV and that more effort needs to be done to accomplish further treatment standardisation, for example with artificial intelligence.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34183040
doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01677-2
pii: 10.1186/s13014-020-01677-2
pmc: PMC8240214
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

120

Subventions

Organisme : Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
ID : SA6419N
Organisme : Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, KU Leuven
ID : C24/18/047

Références

Oral Oncol. 2013 Jun;49(6):634-42
pubmed: 23562564
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jan 1;82(1):368-78
pubmed: 21123004
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 21;56(14):4557-77
pubmed: 21725140
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Feb;12(2):127-36
pubmed: 21236730
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Aug;137:9-15
pubmed: 31048235
Br J Radiol. 2012 Aug;85(1016):e530-6
pubmed: 22815423
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 10;33(29):3277-84
pubmed: 26351354
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Oct;117(1):83-90
pubmed: 26277855
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014 Oct;26(10):636-42
pubmed: 24928558
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 15;67(4):972-5
pubmed: 17208386
Radiat Oncol. 2012 Mar 13;7:32
pubmed: 22414264
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Sep;104(3):343-8
pubmed: 22853852
Radiol Med. 2015 Apr;120(4):352-60
pubmed: 25091709
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Feb 1;40(3):553-7
pubmed: 9486604
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jun;111(3):360-5
pubmed: 24993331
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jan 1;52(1):120-7
pubmed: 11777629
Head Neck. 2016 Apr;38 Suppl 1:E1481-7
pubmed: 26561342
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 15;73(4):1088-95
pubmed: 18707823
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Sep;138:68-74
pubmed: 31146073
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Oct;77(1):25-31
pubmed: 15919126
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jul;92(1):4-14
pubmed: 19446902
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 1;65(3):726-32
pubmed: 16626888
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Dec;101(3):394-402
pubmed: 21664711

Auteurs

J van der Veen (J)

Department of Oncology, Radiation-Oncology, University of Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, KU, Belgium.

A Gulyban (A)

Department of Medical Physics, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. akos.gulyban@gmail.com.

S Willems (S)

Department ESAT, Processing Speech and Images (PSI), Medical Imaging Research Center, KU Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

F Maes (F)

Department ESAT, Processing Speech and Images (PSI), Medical Imaging Research Center, KU Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

S Nuyts (S)

Department of Oncology, Radiation-Oncology, University of Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, KU, Belgium. sandra.nuyts@uzleuven.be.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH