Open AccessHarmonization of the Volume of Interest Delineation among All Eleven Radiotherapy Centers in the North of France
Author(s) -
David Pasquier,
Laurence Boutaud de la Combe-Chossiere,
Damien Carlier,
Franck Darloy,
Anne Catherine Degrendel-Courtecuisse,
Chantal Dufour,
Mustapha Fares,
L. Gilbeau,
X. Liem,
Philippe Martin,
P. Meyer,
Jean François Minne,
O. Olszyk,
H. Rhliouch,
M. Tokarski,
Chloé Viot,
B. Castelain,
Éric Lartigau
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0150917
Subject(s) - medicine , wilcoxon signed rank test , prostate cancer , radiation therapy , nuclear medicine , statistical significance , cancer , radiology , mann–whitney u test
Background Inter-observer delineation variation has been detailed for many years in almost every tumor location. Inadequate delineation can impair the chance of cure and/or increase toxicity. The aim of our original work was to prospectively improve the homogeneity of delineation among all of the senior radiation oncologists in the Nord-Pas de Calais region, irrespective of the conditions of practice. Methods All 11 centers were involved. The first studied cancer was prostate cancer. Three clinical cases were studied: a low-risk prostate cancer case (case 1), a high-risk prostate cancer case (pelvic nodes, case 2) and a case of post-operative biochemical elevated PSA (case 3). All of the involved physicians delineated characteristically the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk. The volumes were compared using validated indexes: the volume ratio (VR), common and additional volumes (CV and AV), volume overlap (VO) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A second delineation of the same three cases was performed after discussion of the slice results and the choice of shared guidelines to evaluate homogenization. A comparative analysis of the indexes before and after discussion was conducted using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results The indexes were not improved in case 1, for which the inter-observer agreement was considered good after the first comparison (DSC = 0.83±0.06). In case 2, the second comparison showed homogenization of the CTV delineation with a significant improvement in CV (81.4±11.7 vs. 88.6±10.26, respectively, p = 0.048), VO (0.41±0.09 vs. 0.47±0.07, respectively; p = 0.009) and DSC (0.58±0.09 vs. 0.63±0.07, respectively; p = 0.0098). In case 3, VR and AV were significantly improved: VR: 1.71(±0.6) vs. 1.34(±0.46), respectively, p = 0.0034; AV: 46.58(±14.50) vs. 38.08(±15.10), respectively, p = 0.0024. DSC was not improved, but it was already superior to 0.6 in the first comparison. Conclusion Our prospective work showed that a collaborative discussion about clinical cases and the choice of shared guidelines within an established framework improved the homogeneity of CTV delineation among the senior radiation oncologists in our region.