Development of prostate bed delineation consensus guidelines for MRI-guided radiotherapy and assessment of its impact on interobserver variability.

MR-Linac MRI MRIgRT contouring prostate bed salvage radiotherapy

Journal

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
ISSN: 1879-355X
Titre abrégé: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603616

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Aug 2023
Historique:
received: 23 05 2023
revised: 18 08 2023
accepted: 21 08 2023
medline: 27 8 2023
pubmed: 27 8 2023
entrez: 26 8 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The use of MRI in radiotherapy planning is becoming more widespread, particularly with the emergence of MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) systems. Existing guidelines for defining the prostate bed clinical target volume (CTV) show considerable heterogeneity. This study aims to establish baseline interobserver variability (IOV) for prostate bed CTV contouring on MRI, develop international consensus guidelines and evaluate its effect on IOV. Participants delineated the CTV on three MRI scans, obtained from the xxx xxx MR-Linac, as per their normal practice. Radiation oncologist contours were visually examined for discrepancies and interobserver comparisons were evaluated against Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimate (STAPLE) contours using overlap metrics (Dice similarity coefficient and Cohen's Kappa), distance metrics (mean distance to agreement and Hausdorff distance) and volume measurements.. A literature review of post-radical prostatectomy local recurrence patterns was performed and presented alongside IOV results to the participants. Consensus guidelines were collectively constructed and IOV assessment was repeated using these guidelines. Sixteen radiation oncologists' contours were included in the final analysis. Visual evaluation demonstrated significant differences in the superior, inferior and anterior borders. Baseline IOV assessment indicated moderate agreement for the overlap metrics whilst volume and distance metrics demonstrated greater variability. Consensus for optimal prostate bed CTV boundaries was established during a virtual meeting. Post-guideline development, a decrease in IOV was observed. The maximum volume ratio decreased from 4.7 to 3.1 and volume coefficient of variation reduced from 40% to 34%. The mean Dice similarity coefficient rose from 0.72 to 0.75 and the mean distance to agreement decreased from 3.63mm to 2.95mm. Interobserver variability in prostate bed contouring exists amongst international genitourinary experts, although this is lower than previously reported. Consensus guidelines for MRI-based prostate bed contouring have been developed and this has resulted in an improvement in contouring concordance. However, IOV persists and strategies such as an education program, development of a contouring atlas and further refinement of the guidelines may lead to additional improvements.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
The use of MRI in radiotherapy planning is becoming more widespread, particularly with the emergence of MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) systems. Existing guidelines for defining the prostate bed clinical target volume (CTV) show considerable heterogeneity. This study aims to establish baseline interobserver variability (IOV) for prostate bed CTV contouring on MRI, develop international consensus guidelines and evaluate its effect on IOV.
METHODS AND MATERIALS METHODS
Participants delineated the CTV on three MRI scans, obtained from the xxx xxx MR-Linac, as per their normal practice. Radiation oncologist contours were visually examined for discrepancies and interobserver comparisons were evaluated against Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimate (STAPLE) contours using overlap metrics (Dice similarity coefficient and Cohen's Kappa), distance metrics (mean distance to agreement and Hausdorff distance) and volume measurements.. A literature review of post-radical prostatectomy local recurrence patterns was performed and presented alongside IOV results to the participants. Consensus guidelines were collectively constructed and IOV assessment was repeated using these guidelines.
RESULTS RESULTS
Sixteen radiation oncologists' contours were included in the final analysis. Visual evaluation demonstrated significant differences in the superior, inferior and anterior borders. Baseline IOV assessment indicated moderate agreement for the overlap metrics whilst volume and distance metrics demonstrated greater variability. Consensus for optimal prostate bed CTV boundaries was established during a virtual meeting. Post-guideline development, a decrease in IOV was observed. The maximum volume ratio decreased from 4.7 to 3.1 and volume coefficient of variation reduced from 40% to 34%. The mean Dice similarity coefficient rose from 0.72 to 0.75 and the mean distance to agreement decreased from 3.63mm to 2.95mm.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Interobserver variability in prostate bed contouring exists amongst international genitourinary experts, although this is lower than previously reported. Consensus guidelines for MRI-based prostate bed contouring have been developed and this has resulted in an improvement in contouring concordance. However, IOV persists and strategies such as an education program, development of a contouring atlas and further refinement of the guidelines may lead to additional improvements.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37633499
pii: S0360-3016(23)07848-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.051
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

K Sritharan (K)

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, UK. Electronic address: k.sritharan@nhs.net.

A Akhiat (A)

Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

D Cahill (D)

Department of Urology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.

S Choi (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Centre, Houston, United States.

A Choudhury (A)

The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.; University of Manchester, UK.

P Chung (P)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

J Diaz (J)

Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

L Dysager (L)

Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

W Hall (W)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

R Huddart (R)

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, UK.

L G W Kerkmeijer (LGW)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

C Lawton (C)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

J Mohajer (J)

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

J Murray (J)

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, UK.

C J Nyborg (CJ)

Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

F J Pos (FJ)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

M Rigo (M)

Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar Di Valpolicella, VR, Italy.

T Schytte (T)

Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

M Sidhom (M)

Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.

A Sohaib (A)

Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, Sutton, UK.

A Tan (A)

Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Queensland, Australia; James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

J van der Voort van Zyp (J)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands.

D Vesprini (D)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

M J Zelefsky (MJ)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, NY, USA.

A C Tree (AC)

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, UK.

Classifications MeSH