We have located links that may give you full text access.
Reproducibility of "intelligent" contouring of gross tumor volume in non-small-cell lung cancer on PET/CT images using a standardized visual method.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is increasingly used for delineating gross tumor volume (GTV) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The methodology for contouring tumor margins remains controversial. We developed a rigorous visual protocol for contouring GTV that uses all available clinical information and studied its reproducibility in patients from a prospective PET/CT planning trial.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning PET/CT scans from 6 consecutive patients were selected. Six "observers" (two radiation oncologists, two nuclear medicine physicians, and two radiologists) contoured GTVs for each patient using a predefined protocol and subsequently recontoured 2 patients. For the estimated GTVs and axial distances, least-squares means for each observer and for each case were calculated and compared, using the F test and pairwise t-tests. In five cases, tumor margins were also autocontoured using standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoffs of 2.5 and 3.5 and 40% SUV(max).
RESULTS: The magnitude of variation between observers was small relative to the mean (coefficient of variation [CV] = 3%), and the total variation (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 3%). For estimation of superior/inferior (SI), left/right (LR), and anterior/posterior (AP) borders of the GTV, differences between observers were also small (AP, CV = 2%, ICC = 0.4%; LR, CV = 6%, ICC = 2%; SI, CV 4%, ICC = 2%). GTVs autocontoured generated using SUV 2.5, 3.5, and 40% SUV(max) differed widely in each case. An SUV contour of 2.5 was most closely correlated with the mean GTV defined by the human observers.
CONCLUSIONS: Observer variation contributed little to total variation in the GTV and axial distances. A visual contouring protocol gave reproducible results for contouring GTV in NSCLC.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning PET/CT scans from 6 consecutive patients were selected. Six "observers" (two radiation oncologists, two nuclear medicine physicians, and two radiologists) contoured GTVs for each patient using a predefined protocol and subsequently recontoured 2 patients. For the estimated GTVs and axial distances, least-squares means for each observer and for each case were calculated and compared, using the F test and pairwise t-tests. In five cases, tumor margins were also autocontoured using standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoffs of 2.5 and 3.5 and 40% SUV(max).
RESULTS: The magnitude of variation between observers was small relative to the mean (coefficient of variation [CV] = 3%), and the total variation (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 3%). For estimation of superior/inferior (SI), left/right (LR), and anterior/posterior (AP) borders of the GTV, differences between observers were also small (AP, CV = 2%, ICC = 0.4%; LR, CV = 6%, ICC = 2%; SI, CV 4%, ICC = 2%). GTVs autocontoured generated using SUV 2.5, 3.5, and 40% SUV(max) differed widely in each case. An SUV contour of 2.5 was most closely correlated with the mean GTV defined by the human observers.
CONCLUSIONS: Observer variation contributed little to total variation in the GTV and axial distances. A visual contouring protocol gave reproducible results for contouring GTV in NSCLC.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app