Department of Oncology, Radiation-Oncology, University of Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, KU, Belgium.
Department of Medical Physics, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium.
Radiat Oncol. 2021 Jun 28;16(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01677-2.
In radiotherapy inaccuracy in organ at risk (OAR) delineation can impact treatment plan optimisation and treatment plan evaluation. Brouwer et al. showed significant interobserver variability (IOV) in OAR delineation in head and neck cancer (HNC) and published international consensus guidelines (ICG) for OAR delineation in 2015. The aim of our study was to evaluate IOV in the presence of these guidelines.
HNC radiation oncologists (RO) from each Belgian radiotherapy centre were invited to complete a survey and submit contours for 5 HNC cases. Reference contours (OARref) were obtained by a clinically validated artificial intelligence-tool trained using ICG. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD) and 95% Hausdorff distances (HD95) were used for comparison.
Fourteen of twenty-two RO (64%) completed the survey and submitted delineations. Thirteen (93%) confirmed the use of delineation guidelines, of which six (43%) used the ICG. The OARs whose delineations agreed best with the OARref were mandible [median DSC 0.9, range (0.8-0.9); median MSD 1.1 mm, range (0.8-8.3), median HD95 3.4 mm, range (1.5-38.7)], brainstem [median DSC 0.9 (0.6-0.9); median MSD 1.5 mm (1.1-4.0), median HD95 4.0 mm (2.3-15.0)], submandibular glands [median DSC 0.8 (0.5-0.9); median MSD 1.2 mm (0.9-2.5), median HD95 3.1 mm (1.8-12.2)] and parotids [median DSC 0.9 (0.6-0.9); median MSD 1.9 mm (1.2-4.2), median HD95 5.1 mm (3.1-19.2)]. Oral cavity, cochleas, PCMs, supraglottic larynx and glottic area showed more variation. RO who used the consensus guidelines showed significantly less IOV (p = 0.008).
Although ICG for delineation of OARs in HNC exist, they are only implemented by about half of RO participating in this study, which partly explains the delineation variability. However, this study highlights that guidelines alone do not suffice to eliminate IOV and that more effort needs to be done to accomplish further treatment standardisation, for example with artificial intelligence.
在放射治疗中,危及器官(OAR)勾画的不准确性会影响治疗计划的优化和评估。Brouwer 等人在头颈部癌症(HNC)中发现 OAR 勾画存在显著的观察者间变异性(IOV),并于 2015 年发布了 OAR 勾画的国际共识指南(ICG)。本研究旨在评估在这些指南存在的情况下的 IOV。
邀请比利时每个放射治疗中心的 HNC 放射肿瘤学家(RO)完成一项调查并提交 5 例 HNC 病例的勾画。参考勾画(OARref)是通过临床验证的人工智能工具获得的,该工具使用 ICG 进行了训练。使用 Dice 相似系数(DSC)、平均表面距离(MSD)和 95% Hausdorff 距离(HD95)进行比较。
22 名 RO 中有 14 名(64%)完成了调查并提交了勾画。13 名(93%)确认使用了勾画指南,其中 6 名(43%)使用了 ICG。与 OARref 勾画最一致的 OAR 是下颌骨[中位数 DSC 为 0.9(0.8-0.9);中位数 MSD 为 1.1mm(0.8-8.3);中位数 HD95 为 3.4mm(1.5-38.7)]、脑干[中位数 DSC 为 0.9(0.6-0.9);中位数 MSD 为 1.5mm(1.1-4.0);中位数 HD95 为 4.0mm(2.3-15.0)]、下颌下腺[中位数 DSC 为 0.8(0.5-0.9);中位数 MSD 为 1.2mm(0.9-2.5);中位数 HD95 为 3.1mm(1.8-12.2)]和腮腺[中位数 DSC 为 0.9(0.6-0.9);中位数 MSD 为 1.9mm(1.2-4.2);中位数 HD95 为 5.1mm(3.1-19.2)]。口腔、耳蜗、PCM、声门上喉和声门区显示出更大的变异性。使用共识指南的 RO 显示出明显较少的 IOV(p=0.008)。
尽管存在用于 HNC 中 OAR 勾画的 ICG,但只有大约一半参与这项研究的 RO 在使用,这部分解释了勾画的变异性。然而,本研究强调,仅仅指南并不能消除 IOV,需要做更多的工作来进一步实现治疗标准化,例如使用人工智能。