Carryn M Anderson, Wenqing Sun, John M Buatti, Joan E Maley, Bruno Policeni, Sarah L Mott, John E Bayouth
{"title":"头颈癌模拟CT、FDG-PET和MR图像上GTV描绘的观察者间和模态间变异性。","authors":"Carryn M Anderson, Wenqing Sun, John M Buatti, Joan E Maley, Bruno Policeni, Sarah L Mott, John E Bayouth","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the interobserver and intermodality differences in image-based identification of head and neck primary site gross tumor volumes (GTV). Modalities compared include: contrast-enhanced CT, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced MRI.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Fourteen patients were simulated after immobilization for all 3 imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI). Three radiation oncologists (RO) contoured GTVs as seen on each modality. The GTV was contoured first on the contrast-enhanced CT (considered the standard), then on PET/CT, and finally on post-contrast T1 MRI. Interobserver and intermodality variability were analyzed by volume, intersection, union, and volume overlap ratio (VOR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of RO contours revealed the average volume for CT-, PET/CT-, and MRI-derived GTVs were 45cc, 35cc and 49cc, respectively. In 93% of cases PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volume and in 57% of cases MRI-derived GTVs had the largest volume. CT showed the largest variation in target definition (standard deviation amongst observers 35%) compared to PET/CT (28%) and MRI (27%). The VOR was largest (indicating greatest interobserver agreement) in PET/CT (46%), followed by MRI (36%), followed by CT (34%). For each observer, the least agreement in GTV definition occurred between MRI & PET/CT (average VOR = 41%), compared to CT & PET/CT (48%) and CT & MRI (47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A nonsignificant interobserver difference in GTVs for each modality was seen. Among three modalities, CT was least consistent, while PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volumes and were most consistent. MRI combined with PET/CT provided the least agreement in GTVs generated. The significance of these differences for head & neck cancer is important to explore as we move to volume-based treatment planning based on multi-modality imaging as a standard method for treatment delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":90567,"journal":{"name":"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology","volume":"1 1","pages":"006"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283948/pdf/nihms647804.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interobserver and intermodality variability in GTV delineation on simulation CT, FDG-PET, and MR Images of Head and Neck Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Carryn M Anderson, Wenqing Sun, John M Buatti, Joan E Maley, Bruno Policeni, Sarah L Mott, John E Bayouth\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the interobserver and intermodality differences in image-based identification of head and neck primary site gross tumor volumes (GTV). Modalities compared include: contrast-enhanced CT, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced MRI.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Fourteen patients were simulated after immobilization for all 3 imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI). Three radiation oncologists (RO) contoured GTVs as seen on each modality. The GTV was contoured first on the contrast-enhanced CT (considered the standard), then on PET/CT, and finally on post-contrast T1 MRI. Interobserver and intermodality variability were analyzed by volume, intersection, union, and volume overlap ratio (VOR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of RO contours revealed the average volume for CT-, PET/CT-, and MRI-derived GTVs were 45cc, 35cc and 49cc, respectively. In 93% of cases PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volume and in 57% of cases MRI-derived GTVs had the largest volume. CT showed the largest variation in target definition (standard deviation amongst observers 35%) compared to PET/CT (28%) and MRI (27%). The VOR was largest (indicating greatest interobserver agreement) in PET/CT (46%), followed by MRI (36%), followed by CT (34%). For each observer, the least agreement in GTV definition occurred between MRI & PET/CT (average VOR = 41%), compared to CT & PET/CT (48%) and CT & MRI (47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A nonsignificant interobserver difference in GTVs for each modality was seen. Among three modalities, CT was least consistent, while PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volumes and were most consistent. MRI combined with PET/CT provided the least agreement in GTVs generated. The significance of these differences for head & neck cancer is important to explore as we move to volume-based treatment planning based on multi-modality imaging as a standard method for treatment delivery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"006\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283948/pdf/nihms647804.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jacobs journal of radiation oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Interobserver and intermodality variability in GTV delineation on simulation CT, FDG-PET, and MR Images of Head and Neck Cancer.
Purpose: To compare the interobserver and intermodality differences in image-based identification of head and neck primary site gross tumor volumes (GTV). Modalities compared include: contrast-enhanced CT, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced MRI.
Methods and materials: Fourteen patients were simulated after immobilization for all 3 imaging modalities (CT, PET/CT, MRI). Three radiation oncologists (RO) contoured GTVs as seen on each modality. The GTV was contoured first on the contrast-enhanced CT (considered the standard), then on PET/CT, and finally on post-contrast T1 MRI. Interobserver and intermodality variability were analyzed by volume, intersection, union, and volume overlap ratio (VOR).
Results: Analysis of RO contours revealed the average volume for CT-, PET/CT-, and MRI-derived GTVs were 45cc, 35cc and 49cc, respectively. In 93% of cases PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volume and in 57% of cases MRI-derived GTVs had the largest volume. CT showed the largest variation in target definition (standard deviation amongst observers 35%) compared to PET/CT (28%) and MRI (27%). The VOR was largest (indicating greatest interobserver agreement) in PET/CT (46%), followed by MRI (36%), followed by CT (34%). For each observer, the least agreement in GTV definition occurred between MRI & PET/CT (average VOR = 41%), compared to CT & PET/CT (48%) and CT & MRI (47%).
Conclusions: A nonsignificant interobserver difference in GTVs for each modality was seen. Among three modalities, CT was least consistent, while PET/CT-derived GTVs had the smallest volumes and were most consistent. MRI combined with PET/CT provided the least agreement in GTVs generated. The significance of these differences for head & neck cancer is important to explore as we move to volume-based treatment planning based on multi-modality imaging as a standard method for treatment delivery.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
