在 CBCT 引导的自适应直肠提升放疗过程中,日常划线是否需要放射肿瘤专家?

Julien Pierrard , David Dechambre , Christel Abdel Massih , Sophie Cvilic , Ana Da Silva Chambel Roma , Pascale Henderickx , Sofie Heylen , Eleonore Longton , Romain Mony , Mohamed Amine Tenabene , Thaïs Tison , Ad Vandermeulen , Loïc Vander Veken , Aniko Wale Etume , Anne-Emmanuella Yeo , Geneviève Van Ooteghem
{"title":"在 CBCT 引导的自适应直肠提升放疗过程中,日常划线是否需要放射肿瘤专家?","authors":"Julien Pierrard ,&nbsp;David Dechambre ,&nbsp;Christel Abdel Massih ,&nbsp;Sophie Cvilic ,&nbsp;Ana Da Silva Chambel Roma ,&nbsp;Pascale Henderickx ,&nbsp;Sofie Heylen ,&nbsp;Eleonore Longton ,&nbsp;Romain Mony ,&nbsp;Mohamed Amine Tenabene ,&nbsp;Thaïs Tison ,&nbsp;Ad Vandermeulen ,&nbsp;Loïc Vander Veken ,&nbsp;Aniko Wale Etume ,&nbsp;Anne-Emmanuella Yeo ,&nbsp;Geneviève Van Ooteghem","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Dose-escalation radiotherapy for rectal tumours is increasingly considered as a non-operative approach, with online-adaptive radiotherapy (oART) supporting this approach by correcting inter-fraction tumour position errors. However, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided oART requires daily target volume delineation by different operators, leading to inter-operator delineation variability and potential dosimetric issues. This study aims to compare and quantify the inter-operator and inter-professional delineation variability of the rectal boost volume on CBCT, including volumes by an automatically delineated oART treatment planning system.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A rectal boost volume, defined as the primary tumour extended to the entire adjacent rectal wall, was delineated on 10 CBCTs from 5 patients by 15 operators: 4 expert radiation oncologists (ROs), 4 radiation therapists (RTTs) and 7 non-expert ROs. These contours were compared between the different professional groups. A comparison to the average volume of the group (ROs, RTTs, or non-expert ROs) with the lowest delineation variability was also performed for each individual volume including the volume automatically generated by an oART treatment planning system.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Delineation variability was the highest in the superior (range: 2.3–6.0 mm), and inferior (2.3–12.4 mm) directions, compared to the left (0.2–4.4 mm), right (0.3–2.0 mm), anterior (0.1–2.9 mm), and posterior (0.5–4.0 mm) directions. Non-expert ROs, RTTs, and automatic oART volume showed similar ranges of delineation errors when compared to the expert ROs’ volume, which was chosen as reference volume since this professional group showed the lowest variability.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Expert ROs showed consistent results. Other professional groups exhibit similar variability, comparable to the automatic oART volume. Therefore, RTTs could safely perform the rectal boost delineation without non-expert ROs supervision in the absence of expert ROs during CBCT-based oART. Moreover, these findings provide quantitative data to compute accurate margins for the rectal boost planning target volume in a CBCT-guided oART workflow.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?\",\"authors\":\"Julien Pierrard ,&nbsp;David Dechambre ,&nbsp;Christel Abdel Massih ,&nbsp;Sophie Cvilic ,&nbsp;Ana Da Silva Chambel Roma ,&nbsp;Pascale Henderickx ,&nbsp;Sofie Heylen ,&nbsp;Eleonore Longton ,&nbsp;Romain Mony ,&nbsp;Mohamed Amine Tenabene ,&nbsp;Thaïs Tison ,&nbsp;Ad Vandermeulen ,&nbsp;Loïc Vander Veken ,&nbsp;Aniko Wale Etume ,&nbsp;Anne-Emmanuella Yeo ,&nbsp;Geneviève Van Ooteghem\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Dose-escalation radiotherapy for rectal tumours is increasingly considered as a non-operative approach, with online-adaptive radiotherapy (oART) supporting this approach by correcting inter-fraction tumour position errors. However, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided oART requires daily target volume delineation by different operators, leading to inter-operator delineation variability and potential dosimetric issues. This study aims to compare and quantify the inter-operator and inter-professional delineation variability of the rectal boost volume on CBCT, including volumes by an automatically delineated oART treatment planning system.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A rectal boost volume, defined as the primary tumour extended to the entire adjacent rectal wall, was delineated on 10 CBCTs from 5 patients by 15 operators: 4 expert radiation oncologists (ROs), 4 radiation therapists (RTTs) and 7 non-expert ROs. These contours were compared between the different professional groups. A comparison to the average volume of the group (ROs, RTTs, or non-expert ROs) with the lowest delineation variability was also performed for each individual volume including the volume automatically generated by an oART treatment planning system.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Delineation variability was the highest in the superior (range: 2.3–6.0 mm), and inferior (2.3–12.4 mm) directions, compared to the left (0.2–4.4 mm), right (0.3–2.0 mm), anterior (0.1–2.9 mm), and posterior (0.5–4.0 mm) directions. Non-expert ROs, RTTs, and automatic oART volume showed similar ranges of delineation errors when compared to the expert ROs’ volume, which was chosen as reference volume since this professional group showed the lowest variability.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Expert ROs showed consistent results. Other professional groups exhibit similar variability, comparable to the automatic oART volume. Therefore, RTTs could safely perform the rectal boost delineation without non-expert ROs supervision in the absence of expert ROs during CBCT-based oART. Moreover, these findings provide quantitative data to compute accurate margins for the rectal boost planning target volume in a CBCT-guided oART workflow.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000519\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:直肠肿瘤的剂量递增放疗越来越多地被认为是一种非手术治疗方法,而在线自适应放疗(oART)通过纠正分次间肿瘤位置误差来支持这种方法。然而,使用锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)引导的 oART 需要不同操作者每天进行靶区划分,从而导致操作者之间的划分差异和潜在的剂量学问题。本研究旨在比较并量化 CBCT 上直肠增量的操作者间和专业间划定差异,包括由自动划定的 oART 治疗计划系统划定的体积。材料与方法15 名操作者在 5 名患者的 10 张 CBCT 上划定了直肠增量,定义为原发肿瘤扩展到整个邻近直肠壁:15名操作者包括4名放射肿瘤专家(RO)、4名放射治疗专家(RTT)和7名非放射肿瘤专家。这些轮廓在不同专业组之间进行了比较。此外,还对每个单个容积(包括 oART 治疗计划系统自动生成的容积)与划线变异性最小的组别(放射治疗专家、放射治疗技师或非放射治疗专家)的平均容积进行了比较。结果 与左侧(0.2-4.4 毫米)、右侧(0.3-2.0 毫米)、前侧(0.1-2.9 毫米)和后侧(0.5-4.0 毫米)相比,上侧(范围:2.3-6.0 毫米)和下侧(2.3-12.4 毫米)方向的划线变异性最高。与专家ROs的容积相比,非专家ROs、RTTs和自动oART容积显示出相似的划线误差范围,由于该专业组显示出最低的变异性,因此选择专家ROs的容积作为参考容积。其他专业群体也表现出类似的变异性,与自动光学显微镜的体积相当。因此,在基于 CBCT 的 oART 过程中,如果没有专家 RO,RTT 可以在没有非专业 RO 监督的情况下安全地进行直肠隆突划定。此外,这些研究结果为在 CBCT 引导的 oART 工作流程中计算直肠提升规划目标体积的精确边缘提供了定量数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?

Introduction

Dose-escalation radiotherapy for rectal tumours is increasingly considered as a non-operative approach, with online-adaptive radiotherapy (oART) supporting this approach by correcting inter-fraction tumour position errors. However, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided oART requires daily target volume delineation by different operators, leading to inter-operator delineation variability and potential dosimetric issues. This study aims to compare and quantify the inter-operator and inter-professional delineation variability of the rectal boost volume on CBCT, including volumes by an automatically delineated oART treatment planning system.

Materials and methods

A rectal boost volume, defined as the primary tumour extended to the entire adjacent rectal wall, was delineated on 10 CBCTs from 5 patients by 15 operators: 4 expert radiation oncologists (ROs), 4 radiation therapists (RTTs) and 7 non-expert ROs. These contours were compared between the different professional groups. A comparison to the average volume of the group (ROs, RTTs, or non-expert ROs) with the lowest delineation variability was also performed for each individual volume including the volume automatically generated by an oART treatment planning system.

Results

Delineation variability was the highest in the superior (range: 2.3–6.0 mm), and inferior (2.3–12.4 mm) directions, compared to the left (0.2–4.4 mm), right (0.3–2.0 mm), anterior (0.1–2.9 mm), and posterior (0.5–4.0 mm) directions. Non-expert ROs, RTTs, and automatic oART volume showed similar ranges of delineation errors when compared to the expert ROs’ volume, which was chosen as reference volume since this professional group showed the lowest variability.

Discussion

Expert ROs showed consistent results. Other professional groups exhibit similar variability, comparable to the automatic oART volume. Therefore, RTTs could safely perform the rectal boost delineation without non-expert ROs supervision in the absence of expert ROs during CBCT-based oART. Moreover, these findings provide quantitative data to compute accurate margins for the rectal boost planning target volume in a CBCT-guided oART workflow.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
期刊最新文献
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review A systematic review of prostate bed motion and anisotropic margins in post-prostatectomy external beam radiotherapy International virtual radiation therapy professional development: Reflections on a twinning collaboration between a low/middle and high income country A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1