早期乳腺癌靶体积描绘的ESTRO和RTOG轮廓指南的一致性

T. Mathew, M. Chao, C. Lapuz, Jonathan M Tomaszewski, Bob Zhang, Megan Hall, M. Tacey, F. Foroudi
{"title":"早期乳腺癌靶体积描绘的ESTRO和RTOG轮廓指南的一致性","authors":"T. Mathew, M. Chao, C. Lapuz, Jonathan M Tomaszewski, Bob Zhang, Megan Hall, M. Tacey, F. Foroudi","doi":"10.15406/ijrrt.2020.07.00279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), including regional lymph node (RLN) irradiation is an important treatment in early stage breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery both the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO). Our primary aim was to quantitatively compare target volumes delineated by ROs, to assess if either guideline has superior contouring reproducibility. Methods: Three ROs contoured breast clinical target volumes (CTVs), axillary lymph node levels 1-3, supraclavicular and internal mammary nodal (CTVn_IMN) volumes for 8 post-operative patients using the ESTRO and RTOG guidelines for each patient. The inter-observer variability in contouring was measured by the generalized Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Mean DSC values were calculated to compare the common volume accuracy between observers.ss Results: The breast CTV contours showed the highest level of agreement between the ROs within each guideline (ESTRO DSC mean 0.92±0.04 and RTOG DSC mean 0.90±0.03). Due to the small standard deviation in DSC values, this difference of 0.02 was found to be statistically significant (p=0.031). The mean DSC for CTVn_IMN was 0.63 (±0.10) for ESTRO and 0.62 (±0.20) for RTOG guidelines, showing the least level of agreement for both guidelines. Within the axillary nodal volumes, level 1 showed the greatest agreement among the ROs for both ESTRO and RTOG guidelines with a mean DSC of 0.81 (±0.08) & 0.82 (±0.06) respectively. The range of mean DSC values for ESTRO and RTOG guidelines was 0.66-0.92 and 0.62-0.90 respectively. Conclusion: Overall, neither guideline showed a notable improvement in reproducibility between ROs.","PeriodicalId":214028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consistency of ESTRO and RTOG contouring guidelines for target volume delineation in early stage breast cancer\",\"authors\":\"T. Mathew, M. Chao, C. Lapuz, Jonathan M Tomaszewski, Bob Zhang, Megan Hall, M. Tacey, F. Foroudi\",\"doi\":\"10.15406/ijrrt.2020.07.00279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), including regional lymph node (RLN) irradiation is an important treatment in early stage breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery both the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO). Our primary aim was to quantitatively compare target volumes delineated by ROs, to assess if either guideline has superior contouring reproducibility. Methods: Three ROs contoured breast clinical target volumes (CTVs), axillary lymph node levels 1-3, supraclavicular and internal mammary nodal (CTVn_IMN) volumes for 8 post-operative patients using the ESTRO and RTOG guidelines for each patient. The inter-observer variability in contouring was measured by the generalized Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Mean DSC values were calculated to compare the common volume accuracy between observers.ss Results: The breast CTV contours showed the highest level of agreement between the ROs within each guideline (ESTRO DSC mean 0.92±0.04 and RTOG DSC mean 0.90±0.03). Due to the small standard deviation in DSC values, this difference of 0.02 was found to be statistically significant (p=0.031). The mean DSC for CTVn_IMN was 0.63 (±0.10) for ESTRO and 0.62 (±0.20) for RTOG guidelines, showing the least level of agreement for both guidelines. Within the axillary nodal volumes, level 1 showed the greatest agreement among the ROs for both ESTRO and RTOG guidelines with a mean DSC of 0.81 (±0.08) & 0.82 (±0.06) respectively. The range of mean DSC values for ESTRO and RTOG guidelines was 0.66-0.92 and 0.62-0.90 respectively. Conclusion: Overall, neither guideline showed a notable improvement in reproducibility between ROs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":214028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15406/ijrrt.2020.07.00279\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15406/ijrrt.2020.07.00279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

导言:辅助放疗(RT),包括区域淋巴结(RLN)放疗是早期乳腺癌保乳手术后的重要治疗方法,无论是放射治疗肿瘤小组(RTOG)还是欧洲放射与肿瘤学会(ESTRO)。我们的主要目的是定量比较ROs描述的靶体积,以评估两种指南是否具有更好的轮廓再现性。方法:采用ESTRO和RTOG指南对8例术后患者进行乳腺临床靶体积(CTVs)、腋窝淋巴结水平1-3、锁骨上和乳腺内淋巴结(CTVn_IMN)体积3个ROs轮廓。采用广义骰子相似系数(DSC)测量轮廓的观察者间变异。计算平均DSC值,比较观察者之间的共同体积精度。结果:乳腺CTV轮廓显示各指南中ROs之间的一致性最高(ESTRO DSC平均值为0.92±0.04,RTOG DSC平均值为0.90±0.03)。由于DSC值的标准差较小,因此发现0.02的差异具有统计学意义(p=0.031)。ESTRO指南CTVn_IMN的平均DSC为0.63(±0.10),RTOG指南为0.62(±0.20),表明两种指南的一致性最低。在腋窝淋巴结体积内,水平1显示ESTRO和RTOG指南中ROs之间的一致性最大,平均DSC分别为0.81(±0.08)和0.82(±0.06)。ESTRO和RTOG指南的DSC平均值分别为0.66 ~ 0.92和0.62 ~ 0.90。结论:总的来说,两种指南都没有显示出ROs之间的可重复性的显著改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consistency of ESTRO and RTOG contouring guidelines for target volume delineation in early stage breast cancer
Introduction: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), including regional lymph node (RLN) irradiation is an important treatment in early stage breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery both the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO). Our primary aim was to quantitatively compare target volumes delineated by ROs, to assess if either guideline has superior contouring reproducibility. Methods: Three ROs contoured breast clinical target volumes (CTVs), axillary lymph node levels 1-3, supraclavicular and internal mammary nodal (CTVn_IMN) volumes for 8 post-operative patients using the ESTRO and RTOG guidelines for each patient. The inter-observer variability in contouring was measured by the generalized Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Mean DSC values were calculated to compare the common volume accuracy between observers.ss Results: The breast CTV contours showed the highest level of agreement between the ROs within each guideline (ESTRO DSC mean 0.92±0.04 and RTOG DSC mean 0.90±0.03). Due to the small standard deviation in DSC values, this difference of 0.02 was found to be statistically significant (p=0.031). The mean DSC for CTVn_IMN was 0.63 (±0.10) for ESTRO and 0.62 (±0.20) for RTOG guidelines, showing the least level of agreement for both guidelines. Within the axillary nodal volumes, level 1 showed the greatest agreement among the ROs for both ESTRO and RTOG guidelines with a mean DSC of 0.81 (±0.08) & 0.82 (±0.06) respectively. The range of mean DSC values for ESTRO and RTOG guidelines was 0.66-0.92 and 0.62-0.90 respectively. Conclusion: Overall, neither guideline showed a notable improvement in reproducibility between ROs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信