Interobserver variability in target volume delineation in postoperative radiochemotherapy for gastric cancer. A pilot prospective study

Adjuvant Radiochemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for Gastric Cancer: Implications for Target Definition

The INT0116 trial was a milestone study and laid the foundation for the adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) associated to concurrent chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC) after gastrectomy. However, it is still controversial whether adding RT to CT could further benefit D2-dissected GC patients. The ARTIST trial indicated that the addition of RT to CT did not have a positive impact on disease-free survival (DFS). Nevertheless, in a subgroup of 396 patients with positive pathological lymph nodes, combined treatment with RT was superior to CT alone. A similar randomized Chinese trial confirmed the superiority of adding RT to CT in terms of DFS for patients with D2 lymphadenectomy. However, several previous randomized studies provided inconsistent results with the benefits of combined treatment of RT and CT. The inconsistent results of several studies may be due to the differences between tumor epidemiology, treatment policies, and treatment outcomes. During the past decade, major progress in accurate target delineation utilizing RT technology has been observed. However, even though the use of adjuvant RT doubled after the INT-0116 trial results became public, the fraction of patients receiving adjuvant RT was still low according to the SEER database. The low rate of adjuvant RT can partially be explained by concern over toxicity while undergoing RT. Several studies have also defined the specific location of locoregional recurrence for postoperative RT in GC, but these studies are still limited. A number of retrospective studies demonstrated that the most prevalent nodal recurrence was outside the D2 dissection field. In order to overcome the restricted nature of a retrospective study and provide more individual radiation field determination, additional large-scale prospective multicenter studies are required to evaluate the optimal RT target.

The role of delineation education programs for improving interobserver variability in target volume delineation in gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether delineation courses for radiation oncologists improve interobserver variability in target volume delineation for post-operative gastric cancer radiotherapy planning.

METHODS

29 radiation oncologists delineated target volumes in a gastric cancer patient. An experienced radiation oncologist lectured about delineation based on contouring atlas and delineation recommendations. After the course, the radiation oncologists, blinded to the previous delineation, provided delineation for the same patient.

RESULTS

The difference between delineated volumes and reference volumes for pre- and post-course clinical target volume (CTV) were 19.8% (-42.4 to 70.6%) and 12.3% (-12.0 to 27.3%) (p = 0.26), respectively. The planning target volume (PTV) differences pre- and post-course according to the reference volume were 20.5% (-40.7 to 93.7%) and 13.1% (-10.6 to 29.5%) (p = 0.30), respectively. The concordance volumes between the pre- and post-course CTVs and PTVs were 467.1 ± 89.2 vs 597.7 ± 54.6 cm³ (p < 0.001) and 738.6 ± 135.1 vs 893.2 ± 144.6 cm³ (p < 0.001), respectively. Minimum and maximum observer variations were seen at the cranial part and splenic hilus and at the caudal part of the CTV. The kappa indices compared with the reference contouring at pre- and post-course delineations were 0.68 and 0.82, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The delineation course improved interobserver variability for gastric cancer. However, impact of target volume changes on toxicity and local control should be evaluated for further studies. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrated that a delineation course based on current recommendations helped physicians delineate smaller and more homogeneous target volumes. Better target volume delineation allows proper target volume irradiation and preventing unnecessary normal tissue irradiation.

Uncertainties in volume delineation in radiation oncology: A systematic review and recommendations for future studies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Volume delineation is a well-recognised potential source of error in radiotherapy. Whilst it is important to quantify the degree of interobserver variability (IOV) in volume delineation, the resulting impact on dosimetry and clinical outcomes is a more relevant endpoint. We performed a literature review of studies evaluating IOV in target volume and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation in order to analyse these with respect to the metrics used, reporting of dosimetric consequences, and use of statistical tests.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Medline and Pubmed databases were queried for relevant articles using keywords. We included studies published in English between 2000 and 2014 with more than two observers.

RESULTS

119 studies were identified covering all major tumour sites. CTV (n=47) and GTV (n=38) were most commonly contoured. Median number of participants and data sets were 7 (3-50) and 9 (1-132) respectively. There was considerable heterogeneity in the use of metrics and methods of analysis. Statistical analysis of results was reported in 68% (n=81) and dosimetric consequences in 21% (n=25) of studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consistency in conducting and reporting analyses from IOV studies. We suggest a framework to use for future studies evaluating IOV.

Clinical target volume in postoperative radiotherapy for gastric cancer: identification of major difficulties and controversies

PURPOSE

To identify the main difficulties in postoperative clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Before and after a training course, 20 radiation oncology residents were asked to delineate the CTV for the postoperative GC case on four computed tomography scans: dome of the diaphragm, anterior abdominal wall, duodenal stump and porta hepatis level, and to determine the lower CTV border. CTV volume was reconstructed from requested planar contours. Area of intersection (AI) for each requested scan and volume of intersection (VI), defined as the overlap of delineated area/volume with respective reference area (RA)/reference volume (RV) proposed by the senior radiation oncologist, were computed. The degree of agreement between the reference and participants' contours was quantified using the Concordance Index (CI): AI/RA × 100% or VI/RV × 100%. The lower CTV border was analyzed separately. Pre- and post-training CIs were compared. A questionnaire investigated the difficulties with contouring.

RESULTS

Mean CI value was the lowest for the dome of the diaphragm (24% pre-training, 35 % post-training) and for the duodenal stump (49% pre-training, 61% post-training). Mean CI for the CTV volume was 49% pre-training and 59% post-training, p = 0.39. Mean distance from the reference to the participants' lower CTV borders was 2.73 cm pre-training and 2.0 cm post-training, p = 0.71. In a questionnaire, 75% of respondents indicated the elective nodal area as the main difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

Delineation of the dome of the diaphragm and the duodenal stump, as yet not recognized as the source of variation, should be addressed in the international consensus guidelines and clarified.