These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Interobserver variation in clinical target volume (CTV) delineation for stereotactic radiotherapy to non-spinal bone metastases in prostate cancer: CT, MRI and PET/CT fusion.
    Author: Chapman ER, Nicholls L, Suh YE, Khoo V, Levine D, Ap Dafydd D, Van As N.
    Journal: Radiother Oncol; 2023 Mar; 180():109461. PubMed ID: 36634852.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of SBRT for the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer is increasing rapidly. While consensus guidelines are available for non-spinal bone metastases practice continues to vary widely. The aim of this study is to look at inter-observer variability in the contouring of prostate cancer non-spinal bone metastases with different imaging modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 metastases from 13 patients treated at our centre were selected. 4 observers independently contoured clinical target volumes (CTV) on planning CT alone, planning CT with MRI fusion, planning CT with PET-CT fusion and planning CT with both MRI and PET-CT fusion combined. The mean inter-observer agreement on each modality was compared by measuring the delineated volume, generalized conformity index (CIgen), and the distance of the centre of mass (dCOM), calculated per metastasis and imaging modality. RESULTS: Mean CTV volume delineated on planning CT with MRI and PET-CT fusion combined was significantly larger compared to other imaging modalities (p = 0.0001). CIgen showed marked variation between modalities with the highest agreement between planning CT + PET-CT (mean CIgen 0.55, range 0.32-0.73) and planning CT + MRI + PET-CT (mean CIgen 0.59, range 0.34-0.73). dCOM showed small variations between imaging modalities but a significantly shorter distance found on planning CT + PET-CT when compared with planning CT + PET-CT + MRI combined (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Highest consistency in CTV delineation between observers was seen with planning CT + PET-CT and planning CT + PET-CT + MRI combined.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]