Search

Background and purpose: Chemoradiotherapy followed by brachytherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). In this study, we postulate that omitting an iconographical unaffected uterus (+12 mm distance from the tumour) from the treatment volume is safe and that no tumour will be found in the non-targeted uterus (NTU) leading to reduction of high-dose volumes of surrounding organs at risk (OARs) Material and Methods: In this single-arm phase 2 study, two sets of target volumes were delineated: one standard-volume (whole uterus) and an EXIT-volume (exclusion of non-tumour-bearing parts of the uterus with a minimum 12 mm margin from the tumour). All patients underwent chemoradiotherapy targeting the EXIT-volume, followed by completion hysterectomy. In 15 patients, a plan comparison between two treatment plans (PTV vs PTV_EXIT) was performed. The primary endpoint was the pathological absence of tumour involvement in the non-targeted uterus (NTU). Secondary endpoints included dosimetric impact of target volume reduction on OARs, acute and chronic toxicity, overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In all 21 (FIGO stage I: 2; II: 14;III: 3; IV: 2) patients the NTU was pathologically negative. Ssignificant reductions in Dmean in bladder, sigmoid and rectum; V15Gy in sigmoid and rectum, V30Gy in bladder, sigmoid and rectum; V40Gy and V45Gy in bladder, bowel bag, sigmoid and rectum; V50Gy in rectum were achieved. Median follow-up was 54 months (range 7–79 months). Acute toxicity was mainly grade 2 and 5 % grade 3 urinary. The 3y- OS, PFS and LRFS were respectively 76,2%, 64,9% and 81 %. Conclusion: MRI-based exclusion of the non-tumour-bearing parts of the uterus at a minimum distance of 12 mm from the tumour out of the target volume in LACC can be done without risk of residual disease in the NTU, leading to a significant reduction of the volume of surrounding OARS treated to high doses.

Background: During the last decade, radiotherapy using MR Linac has gone from research to clinical implementation for different cancer locations. For head and neck cancer (HNC), target delineation based only on MR images is not yet standard, and the utilisation of MRI instead of PET/CT in radiotherapy planning is not well established. We aimed to analyse the inter-observer variation (IOV) in delineating GTV (gross tumour volume) on MR images only for patients with HNC. Material/methods: 32 HNC patients from two independent departments were included. Four clinical oncologists from Denmark and four radiation oncologists from Australia had independently contoured primary tumour GTVs (GTV-T) and nodal GTVs (GTV-N) on T2-weighted MR images obtained at the time of treatment planning. Observers were provided with sets of images, delineation guidelines and patient synopsis. Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) reference volumes were generated for each structure using all observer contours. The IOV was assessed using the DICE Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and mean absolute surface distance (MASD). Results: 32 GTV-Ts and 68 GTV-Ns were contoured per observer. The median MASD for GTV-Ts and GTV-Ns across all patients was 0.17 cm (range 0.08–0.39 cm) and 0.07 cm (range 0.04–0.33 cm), respectively. Median DSC relative to a STAPLE volume for GTV-Ts and GTV-Ns across all patients were 0.73 and 0.76, respectively. A significant correlation was seen between median DSCs and median volumes of GTV-Ts (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.76, p

Aims: The introduction of on-line magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) has led to an improvement in the therapeutic workflow of radiotherapy treatments thanks to the better visualization of therapy volumes assured by the higher soft tissue contrast. Magnetic Resonance contrast agents (MRCA) could improve the target delineation in on-line MRIgRT planning as well as reduce inter-observer variability and enable innovative treatment optimization protocols. The aim of this survey is to investigate the utilization of MRCA among centres that clinically implemented on-line MRIgRT technology. Methods: In September 2021, we conducted an online survey consisting of a sixteen-question questionnaire that was distributed to the all the hospitals around the world equipped with MR Linacs. The questionnaire was developed by two Italian 0.35 T and 1.5 T MR-Linac centres and was validated by four other collaborating centres, using a Delphi consensus methodology. Results: The survey was distributed to 52 centres and 43 centres completed it (82.7%). Among these centres, 23 institutions (53.5%) used the 0.35T MR-Linac system, while the remaining 20 (46.5%) used the 1.5T MR-Linac system.According to results obtained, 25 (58%) of the centres implemented the use of MRCA for on-line MRIgRT. Gadoxetate (Eovist®; Primovist®) was reported to be the most used MRCA (80%) and liver the most common site of application (58%). Over 70% of responders agreed/strongly agreed to the need for international guidelines. Conclusions: The use of MRCA in clinical practice presents several pitfalls and future research will be necessary to understand the actual advantage derived from the use of MRCA in clinical practice, their toxicity profiles and better define the need of formulating guidelines for standardising the use of MRCA in MRIgRT workflow.

Background and Purpose: Magnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy utilizes MR images for (online) plan adaptation and image guidance. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of variation in MR acquisition time and scan resolution on image quality, interobserver variation in contouring and interobserver variation in registration. Materials and Methods: Nine patients with prostate cancer were included. Four T2-weighted 3D turbo spin echo (T2w 3D TSE) sequences were acquired with different acquisition times and resolutions. Two radiologists assessed image quality, conspicuity of the capsule, peripheral zone and central gland architecture and motion artefacts on a 5 point scale. Images were delineated by two radiation oncologists and interobserver variation was assessed by the 95% Hausdorff distance. Seven observers registered the MR images on the planning CT. Registrations were compared on systematic offset and interobserver variation. Results: Acquisition times ranged between 1.3 and 6.3 min. Overall image quality and capsule definition were significantly worse for the MR sequence with an acquisition time of 1.3 min compared to the other sequences. Median 95% Hausdorff distance showed no significant differences in interobserver variation of contouring. Systematic offset and interobserver variation in registration were small (

Background and purpose: Substantial inter-observer variations in target delineation have been presented previously. Target delineation for paediatric cases is difficult due to the small number of children, the variation in paediatric targets, the number of study protocols, and the individual patient’s specific needs and demands. Uncertainties in target delineation might lead to under-dosage or over-dosage. The aim of this work is to apply the concept of a consensus volume and good quality treatment plans to visualise and quantify inter-observer target delineation variations in dosimetric terms in addition to conventional geometrically based volume concordance indices. Material and methods: Two paediatric cases were used to demonstrate the potential of adding dose metrics when evaluating target delineation diversity; Hodgkin’s disease (case 1) and rhabdomyosarcoma of the parotid gland (case 2). The variability in target delineation (PTV delineations) between six centres was quantified using the generalised conformity index, CIgen, generated for volume overlap. The STAPLE algorithm, as implemented in CERR, was used for both cases to derive a consensus volumes. STAPLE is a probabilistic estimate of the true volume generated from all observers. Dose distributions created by each centre for the original target volumes were then applied to this consensus volume. Results: A considerable variation in target segmentation was seen in both cases. For case 1 the variation was 374–960 cm3 (average 669 cm3) and for case 2; 65–126 cm3 (average 109 cm3). CIgen were 0.53 and 0.70, respectively. The DVHs in absolute volume displayed for the delineated target volume as well as for the consensus volume adds information on both “compliant” target volumes as well as outliers which are hidden with just the use of concordance indices. Conclusions: The DVHs in absolute volume add valuable and easily understood information to various indices for evaluating uniformity in target delineation.

Purpose/objective(s): Accurate target delineation (ie, contouring) is essential for radiation treatment planning and radiotherapy efficacy. As a result, improving the quality of target delineation is an important goal in the education of radiation oncology residents. The purpose of this study was to track the concordance of radiation oncology residents' contours with those of faculty physicians over the course of 1 year to assess for patterns., Materials/methods: Residents in postgraduate year (PGY) levels 2 to 4 were asked to contour target volumes that were then compared to the finalized, faculty physician-approved contours. Concordance between resident and faculty physician contours was determined by calculating the Jaccard concordance index (JCI), ranging from 0, meaning no agreement, to 1, meaning complete agreement. Multivariate mixed-effect models were used to assess the association of JCI to the fixed effect of PGY level and its interactions with cancer type and other baseline characteristics. Post hoc means of JCI were compared between PGY levels after accounting for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method., Results: In total, 958 structures from 314 patients collected during the 2020-2021 academic year were studied. The mean JCI was 0.77, 0.75, and 0.61 for the PGY-4, PGY-3, and PGY-2 levels, respectively. The JCI score for PGY-2 was found to be lower than those for PGY-3 and PGY-4, respectively (all P < .001). No statistically significant difference of JCI score was found between the PGY-3 and PGY-4 levels. The average JCI score was lowest (0.51) for primary head and/or neck cancers, and it was highest (0.80) for gynecologic cancers., Conclusions: Tracking and comparing the concordance of resident contours with faculty physician contours is an intriguing method of assessing resident performance in contouring and target delineation and could potentially serve as a quantitative metric, which is lacking currently, in radiation oncology resident evaluation. However, additional study is necessary before this technique can be incorporated into residency assessments., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the management of early-stage breast cancer using radiation therapy, computed tomography (CT) simulation is used to identify the breast conservation surgery (BCS) seroma as a proxy for the tumour bed. The delineation or contouring of the seroma is generally a task performed by a radiation oncologist (RO). With increasing patient numbers and other demands placed on ROs, the scope of practice for radiation therapists (RTs) is continually expanding, and the need for skills transfer from one profession to another has been investigated in recent years. This study aims to compare the BCS seroma volumes contoured by RTs with those contoured by ROs to add evidence in support of expanding the RTs' role in the treatment planning process in the management of early-stage breast cancer., Methods: A study was undertaken using the CT-simulation (CT-sim) data sets of patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in 2013. The CT-sim data sets had BCS seromas contoured by 1 of 5 ROs as part of routine clinical management. This study involved 4 RTs who each used the patient information to identify and contour breast seromas on 50 deidentified CT-sim data sets. Metrics used to compare RT versus RO contours included volume size, overlap between volumes, and geographical distance from the centre of volumes., Results: There were 50 CT-sim data sets with 1 RO contour and 4 RT contours analysed. The contour volumes of the 4 RTs and the ROs were assessed. Although there were 50 CT-sim data sets presented to each RT, analysis was carried out on 45, 43, 46, and 45 CT-sim data sets. There were no comparisons made where contours were not delineated. The contour volumes of the 4 RTs and the ROs were assessed with an interclass correlation coefficient, with a result of excellent reliability (0.975, 95% [0.963, 0.985]). The DICE similarity coefficient was used to compare the overlap of each RT contour with the RO contour; the results were favourable with mean (95% CI) DSCs 0.685, 0.640, 0.678, and 0.681, respectively. Comparing the RT and RO geographical centre of the seroma volumes, good to excellent reliability between the RTs and ROs was demonstrated (95% CI mean RO vs RT distances (mm): 3.75, 4.99, 7.71, and 3.39). There was no statistically significant difference between the distances (P = 0.65)., Conclusion: BCS seromas contoured by RTs compared well with those contoured by an RO. This research has provided further evidence to support RTs in assuming additional contouring responsibilities in radiation therapy planning for patients with early-stage breast cancer., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Within radiation oncology, treatment of head and neck cancer is known for its unique challenges with patient weight loss and body contour changes. This study sought to quantify these changes through measuring the volume and position of specific target structures over the course of radiation treatment and determining if changes in these factors affected what dose was ultimately delivered., Methods: This study utilized weekly cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images taken immediately before radiation treatments to measure the difference between the expected location and the actual location of clinical target volumes. Minimum and mean doses to planned target volumes (PTVs) were then calculated on the CBCT scans and compared with the expected planned dose., Results: In the twenty patients included in this single-institutional study, a significant average difference of 2.47% (P < .0001) and 5.06% (P < .0001) was found in the locations of the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes, respectively. Software limitations reduced the sample size that could be used to compare delivered and planned dose to nine patients, but of that number, a significant decrease of 10% was found in the minimum dose delivered to both the high-risk (P = .0401) and low-risk (P = .0123) PTVs. Mean doses to the PTVs did not differ significantly and no correlation was found between any volumetric and dosimetric deviations., Conclusion: The results of this study support the presence of volume matching inaccuracies for patients with head and neck cancer with simultaneous altered minimum doses to PTVs. Based on these findings, it is suggested that institutions may benefit from a standardized treatment imaging protocol that would include a minimum of weekly full-trajectory CBCT scans to assess target volume location, particularly those of the inferior nodal volumes., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To compare the quality of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in target delineation of hepatocellular carcinoma., Patients and Methods: Thirty-one patients with hepatocellular carcinoma received CT and MRI (including diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]) before surgery. The maximal measurement on axial imaging and pathologic examination were extracted for statistical analysis., Results: CT, MRI, DWI-based tumour size correlated well with pathologic sizes, r=0.974, 0.969, 0.964 respectively. But Wilcoxon signed-ranked test showed that differences did exist. CT overestimated the tumour size by 2.9mm compared to pathology (95% CI: -13.2 to 7.4mm). The agreement of MRI-pathology seemed to be worse than CT, with a mean difference of 3.6mm (95% CI: -14.7 to 7.7mm). The worst agreement was in DWI-pathology, with a mean difference of 5mm (95% CI: -17.9 to 7.9mm). But significant difference was found neither between CT and MRI (P=0.477) nor between MRI and DWI (P=0.079)., Conclusions: CT and MRI-based tumour size correlated well with pathologic size, but differences did exist. Most of the lesions were overestimated by CT and MRI. CT and MRI were similar in the guidance of target delineation, and DWI had added little value to MRI. A margin of 10mm around the gross tumour volume to become the clinical target volume is likely not sufficient., (Copyright © 2013 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)