Interobserver variation in cervical cancer tumor delineation for image‐based radiotherapy planning among and within different specialties

Abstract

Radiation therapy for cervical cancer involves a team of specialists, including diagnostic radiologists (DRs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and medical physicists (MPs), to optimize imaging‐based radiation therapy planning. The purpose of the study was to investigate the interobserver variations in tumor delineation on MR images of cervical cancer within the same and among different specialties. Twenty MRI cervical cancer studies were independently reviewed by two DRs, two ROs, and two MPs. For every study, each specialist contoured the tumor regions of interest (ROIs) on T2‐weighted Turbo Spin Echo sagittal images on all slices containing tumor, and the total tumor volume was computed for statistical analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences in tumor volume delineation among the observers. A graph of all tumor‐delineated volumes was generated, and differences between the maximum and minimum volumes over all the readers for each patient dataset were computed. Challenges during the evaluation process for tumor delineation were recorded for each specialist. Interobserver variations of delineated tumor volumes were significant false(p<0.01false) among all observers based on a repeated measures ANOVA, which produced an Ffalse(5,95false)=3.55. The median difference between the maximum delineated volume and minimum delineated volume was 33.5 cm3 (which can be approximated by a sphere of 4.0 cm diameter) across all 20 patients. Challenges noted for tumor delineation included the following: (1) partial voluming by parametrial fat at the periphery of the uterus; (2) extension of the tumor into parametrial space; (3) similar signal intensity of structures proximal to the tumor such as ovaries, muscles, bladder wall, bowel loops, and pubic symphysis; (4) postradiation changes such as heterogeneity and necrosis; (5) susceptibility artifacts from bowels and vaginal tampons; (6) presence of other pathologies such as atypical myoma; (7) factors that affect pelvic anatomy, including the degree of bladder distension, bowel interposition, uterine malposition, retroversion, and descensus. Our limited study indicates significant interobserver variation in tumor delineation. Despite rapid progress in technology, which has improved the resolution and precision of image acquisition and the delivery of radiotherapy to the millimeter level, such “human” variations (at the centimeter level) may overshadow the gain from technical advancement and impact treatment planning. Strategies of standardization and training in tumor delineation need to be developed.PACS number(s):

A review of interventions to reduce inter‐observer variability in volume delineation in radiation oncology

“…found that collaborative tumour delineation in lung cancer changed contouring in 19/20 cases. Some authors have suggested training with or close collaboration with a radiologist when contouring . The use of multimodality imaging is becoming standard in radiation oncology and attention must be paid to both image registration and interpretation.…”

Three‐dimensional assessment of interfractional cervical and uterine motions using daily magnetic resonance images to determine margins and timing of replanning

“…First, delineation was conducted by a single radiation oncologist on the MR images with fixed imaging protocols. As several investigators indicated, 24 , 25 these factors may cause the results to change. Second, the margins and coverage were calculated based on the same patient group.…”

Comparison of Tumor Volume Between PET and MRI in Cervical Cancer With Hybrid PET/MR

“…In MR-GTV, the uncertainties include the following: partial voluming by parametrial fat, extension of the tumor into parametrial space, similar signal intensity of structures proximal to the tumor, susceptibility artifacts from bowels and vaginal tampons, as well as presence of atypical myoma. 29 The present study attempted to minimize these ambiguities by consulting an experienced radiologist and a radiation oncologist to determine the MR-GTV. All images were reviewed with knowledge of the patient's clinical history and results of previous imaging studies at the time of localization, thus minimizing MR-GTV measurement errors.…”