Search

Purpose: Oncologic imaging is a key for successful cancer treatment. While the quality assurance (QA) of image acquisition protocols has already been focussed, QA of reading and reporting offers still room for improvement. The latter was addressed in the context of a prospective multicentre trial on fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron-emission tomography (PET)/CT-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Material and Methods: An expert panel was prospectively installed performing blinded reviews of mediastinal NSCLC involvement in FDG-PET/CT. Due to a high initial reporting inter-observer disagreement, the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) triggered an interventional harmonisation process, which overall involved 11 experts uttering 6855 blinded diagnostic statements. After assessing the baseline inter-observer agreement (IOA) of a blinded re-review (phase 1), a discussion process led to improved reading criteria (phase 2). Those underwent a validation study (phase 3) and were then implemented into the study routine. After 2 months (phase 4) and 1 year (phase 5), the IOA was reassessed., Results: The initial overall IOA was moderate (kappa 0.52 CT; 0.53 PET). After improvement of reading criteria, the kappa values improved substantially (kappa 0.61 CT; 0.66 PET), which was retained until the late reassessment (kappa 0.71 CT; 0.67 PET). Subjective uncertainty was highly predictive for low IOA., Conclusion: The IOA of an expert panel was significantly improved by a structured interventional harmonisation process which could be a model for future clinical trials. Furthermore, the low IOA in reporting nodal involvement in NSCLC may bear consequences for individual patient care., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Interobserver variability in the definition of target volumes (TVs) is a well-known confounding factor in (multicentre) clinical studies employing radiotherapy. Therefore, detailed contouring guidelines are provided in the prospective randomised multicentre PET-Plan (NCT00697333) clinical trial protocol. This trial compares strictly FDG-PET-based TV delineation with conventional TV delineation in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite detailed contouring guidelines, their interpretation by different radiation oncologists can vary considerably, leading to undesirable discrepancies in TV delineation. Considering this, as part of the PET-Plan study quality assurance (QA), a contouring dummy run (DR) consisting of two phases was performed to analyse the interobserver variability before and after teaching., Materials and Methods: In the first phase of the DR (DR1), radiation oncologists from 14 study centres were asked to delineate TVs as defined by the study protocol (gross TV, GTV; and two clinical TVs, CTV-A and CTV-B) in a test patient. A teaching session was held at a study group meeting, including a discussion of the results focussing on discordances in comparison to the per-protocol solution. Subsequently, the second phase of the DR (DR2) was performed in order to evaluate the impact of teaching., Results: Teaching after DR1 resulted in a reduction of absolute TVs in DR2, as well as in better concordance of TVs. The Overall Kappa(κ) indices increased from 0.63 to 0.71 (GTV), 0.60 to 0.65 (CTV-A) and from 0.59 to 0.63 (CTV-B), demonstrating improvements in overall interobserver agreement., Conclusion: Contouring DRs and study group meetings as part of QA in multicentre clinical trials help to identify misinterpretations of per-protocol TV delineation. Teaching the correct interpretation of protocol contouring guidelines leads to a reduction in interobserver variability and to more consistent contouring, which should consequently improve the validity of the overall study results.

Background and Purpose: The integration of positron emission tomography (PET) information for target volume delineation in radiation treatment planning is routine in many centers. In contrast to automatic contouring, research on visual-manual delineation is scarce. The present study investigates the dependency of manual delineation on experience and qualification., Patients and Methods: A total of 44 international interdisciplinary observers each defined a [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET based gross tumor volume (GTV) using the same PET/CT scan from a patient with lung cancer. The observers were "experts" (E; n = 3), "experienced interdisciplinary pairs" (EP; 9 teams of radiation oncologist (RO) + nuclear medicine physician (NP)), "single field specialists" (SFS; n = 13), and "students" (S; n = 10). Five automatic delineation methods (AM) were also included. Volume sizes and concordance indices within the groups (pCI) and relative to the experts (eCI) were calculated., Results: E (pCI = 0.67) and EP (pCI = 0.53) showed a significantly higher agreement within the groups as compared to SFS (pCI = 0.43, p = 0.03, and p = 0.006). In relation to the experts, EP (eCI = 0.55) showed better concordance compared to SFS (eCI = 0.49) or S (eCI = 0.47). The intermethod variability of the AM (pCI = 0.44) was similar to that of SFS and S, showing poorer agreement with the experts (eCI = 0.35)., Conclusion: The results suggest that interdisciplinary cooperation could be beneficial for consistent contouring. Joint delineation by a radiation oncologist and a nuclear medicine physician showed remarkable agreement and better concordance with the experts compared to other specialists. The relevant intermethod variability of the automatic algorithms underlines the need for further standardization and optimization in this field.

Background: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SBRT, SABR) is being increasingly applied because of its high local efficacy, e.g., for small lung tumors. However, the optimum dosage is still under discussion. Here, we report data on 45 lung lesions [non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or metastases] in 39 patients treated between 2009 and 2010 by SABR., Patients and Methods: SABR was performed with total doses of 35 Gy (5 fractions) or 37.5 Gy (3 fractions) prescribed to the 60% isodose line encompassing the planning target volume. Three-monthly follow-up CT scans were supplemented by FDG-PET/CT if clinically indicated., Results: The median follow-up was 17 months. Local progression-free survival rates were 90.5% (all patients), 95.0% (NSCLC), and 81.8% (metastases) at 1 year. At 2 years, the respective local progression-free survival rates were 80.5%, 95.0%, and 59.7%. Overall survival rates were 71.1% (all patients), 65.4% (NSCLC), and 83.3% (metastases) at 1 year. Overall survival rates at 2 years were 52.7%, 45.9%, and 66.7%, respectively. Acute side effects were mild., Conclusion: With the moderate dose schedule used, well-tolerated SABR led to favorable local tumor control as in other published series. Standardization in reporting the dose prescription for SABR is needed to allow comparison of different series in order to determine optimum dosage.