Reproducibility of “Intelligent” Contouring of Gross Tumor Volume in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer on PET/CT Images Using a Standardized Visual Method

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Michael Bayne ; Rodney J. Hicks ; Sarah Everitt ; Natalie Fimmell ; David Ball ; John Reynolds ; Eddie Lau ; Alex Pitman ; Robert Ware ; Michael MacManus
• 刊名：International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
• 出版年：2010
• 出版时间：15 July 2010
• 年：2010
• 卷：77
• 期：4
• 页码：1151-1157
• 全文大小：506 K

文摘

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.