Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Sanders, Jeremiah W.
• Mok, Henry
• Hanania, Alexander N.
• Venkatesan, Aradhana M.
• Tang, Chad
• Bruno, Teresa L.
• Thames, Howard D.
• Kudchadker, Rajat J.
• Frank, Steven J.

Titel

Computer-aided segmentation on MRI for prostate radiotherapy, Part I: Quantifying human interobserver variability of the prostate and organs at risk and its impact on radiation dosimetry

Ist Teil von

• Radiotherapy and oncology, 2022-04, Vol.169, p.124-131

Ort / Verlag

Ireland: Elsevier B.V

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• •High interobserver variability (IoV) was observed at junctions between the prostate and one or more organs at risk.•Radiation oncologists were the most consistent group of observers, but high IoV was still observed in this group.•IoV demonstrated a dependence on organ size, and was highest for the external urinary sphincter.•High IoV was observed on both treatment planning MRIs and postimplant quality assessment MRIs.•Dose-volume-histogram parameters for MRI-based prostate radiotherapy are heavily influenced by IoV. Quantifying the interobserver variability (IoV) of prostate and periprostatic anatomy delineation on prostate MRI is necessary to inform its use for treatment planning, treatment delivery, and treatment quality assessment. Twenty five prostate cancer patients underwent MRI-based low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDRPBT). The patients were scanned with a 3D T2-weighted sequence for treatment planning and a 3D T2/T1-weighted sequence for quality assessment. Seven observers involved with the LDRPBT workflow delineated the prostate, external urinary sphincter (EUS), seminal vesicles, rectum, and bladder on all 50 MRIs. IoV was assessed by measuring contour similarity metrics, differences in organ volumes, and differences in dosimetry parameters between unique observer pairs. Measurements from a group of 3 radiation oncologists (G1) were compared against those from a group consisting of the other 4 clinical observers (G2). IoV of the prostate was lower for G1 than G2 (Matthew’s correlation coefficient [MCC], G1 vs. G2: planning–0.906 vs. 0.870, p < 0.001; postimplant–0.899 vs. 0.861, p < 0.001). IoV of the EUS was highest of all the organs for both groups, but was lower for G1 (MCC, G1 vs. G2: planning–0.659 vs. 0.402, p < 0.001; postimplant–0.684 vs. 0.398, p < 0.001). Large differences in prostate dosimetry parameters were observed (G1 maximum absolute prostate ΔD90: planning–76.223 Gy, postimplant–36.545 Gy; G1 maximum absolute prostate ΔV100: planning–13.927%, postimplant–8.860%). While MRI is optimal in the management of prostate cancer with radiation therapy, significant interobserver variability of the prostate and external urinary sphincter still exist.