Variabilities of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-, Computed Tomography-, and Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography-Based Tumor and Lymph Node Delineations for Lung Cancer Radiation Therapy Planning.

PURPOSE

To investigate interobserver delineation variability for gross tumor volumes of primary lung tumors and associated pathologic lymph nodes using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to compare the results with computed tomography (CT) alone- and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT-based delineations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seven physicians delineated the tumor volumes of 10 patients for the following scenarios: (1) CT only, (2) PET-CT fusion images registered to CT ("clinical standard"), and (3) postcontrast T1-weighted MRI registered with diffusion-weighted MRI. To compute interobserver variability, the median surface was generated from all observers' contours and used as the reference surface. A physician labeled the interface types (tumor to lung, atelectasis (collapsed lung), hilum, mediastinum, or chest wall) on the median surface. Contoured volumes and bidirectional local distances between individual observers' contours and the reference contour were analyzed.

RESULTS

Computed tomography- and MRI-based tumor volumes normalized relative to PET-CT-based volumes were 1.62 ± 0.76 (mean ± standard deviation) and 1.38 ± 0.44, respectively. Volume differences between the imaging modalities were not significant. Between observers, the mean normalized volumes per patient averaged over all patients varied significantly by a factor of 1.6 (MRI) and 2.0 (CT and PET-CT) (P=4.10 × 10 to 3.82 × 10). The tumor-atelectasis interface had a significantly higher variability than other interfaces for all modalities combined (P=.0006). The interfaces with the smallest uncertainties were tumor-lung (on CT) and tumor-mediastinum (on PET-CT and MRI).

CONCLUSIONS

Although MRI-based contouring showed overall larger variability than PET-CT, contouring variability depended on the interface type and was not significantly different between modalities, despite the limited observer experience with MRI. Multimodality imaging and combining different imaging characteristics might be the best approach to define the tumor volume most accurately.