Interobserver Variations in Target Delineation in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and its Impact on Target Dose Coverage

• Published in: Technology in cancer research & treatment 2023-01, Vol.22, p.15330338231169592-15330338231169592
• Main Authors: Liu, Xu, Huang, Huixian, Zhu, Chaohua, Gan, Qihuan, Jiang, Hailan, Liu, Pei, Qi, Xin, Fan, Fangfang, Xiao, Jinru, Pang, Qiang, Lu, Zhiping, Lu, Heming
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Humans; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma - etiology; Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma - radiotherapy; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Observer Variation; Original; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Retrospective Studies; Statistical analysis; Throat cancer
• ISSN: 1533-0346; 1533-0338
• DOI: 10.1177/15330338231169592

Background To investigate the differences between physicians in target delineation in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma as well as their impact on target dose coverage. Methods Ninety-nine in-hospital patients were randomly selected for retrospective analysis, and the target volumes were delineated by 2 physicians. The target volumes were integrated with the original plans, and the differential parameters, including the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), and Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC) were recorded. The dose–volume parameters to evaluate target dose coverage were analyzed by superimposing the same original plan to the 2 sets of images on which the target volumes were contoured by the 2 physicians. The significance of differences in target volumes and dose coverage were evaluated using statistical analysis. Results The target dose coverage for different sets of target volumes showed statistically significant differences, while the similarity metrics to evaluate geometric target volume differences did not. More specifically, for PGTVnx, the median DSC, JSC, and HD were 0.85, 0.74, and 11.73, respectively; for PCTV1, the median values were 0.87, 0.77, and 11.78, respectively; for PCTV2, the median values were 0.90, 0.82, and 16.12, respectively. For patients in stages T3-4, DSC, and JSC were reduced but HD was increased compared to those in stages T1-2. Dosimetric analysis indicated that, for the target volumes, significant differences between the 2 physicians were found in D95, D99, and V100 for all the target volumes (ie, PGTVnx, PCTV1, and PCTV2) across the whole group of patients, as well as in patients with disease stages T3-4 and T1-2. Conclusions The target volumes delineated by the 2 physicians had a high similarity, but the maximal distances between the outer contours of the 2 sets were significantly different. In patients with advanced T stages, significant differences in dose distributions were found, stemming from the deviations of target delineation.