Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess variability in contouring the gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) of 3 clinical cervix cancer cases by a cohort of... Show morePurpose: The purpose of this study was to assess variability in contouring the gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) of 3 clinical cervix cancer cases by a cohort of international experts in the field in preparation for the development of an online teaching atlas.Methods and materials: Twelve international experts participated. Three clinical scenarios: node positivity (PLN), retroverted uterus (RV), and parametrial invasion (PI) were used. Sagittal and axial magnetic resonance images of the clinical cases were downloaded to participants' treatment planning systems for contouring. The GTV/cervix/uterus/parametria/vagina and nodal CTV were contoured. Contour consensus was assessed for sensitivity/specificity using an expectation maximization algorithm called Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation and experts' overall agreement was summarized by kappa statistics.Results: Agreement for GTV in the 3 clinical cases was high (Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation sensitivity, 0.54-0.92; specificity, 0.97-0.98; and kappa measure for PLN, RV, and PI was 0.86, 0.76, and 0.42; P < .0001). Moderate to substantial agreement was seen for nodal CTV (kappa statistics for PLN, RV, and PI was 0.65, 0.58, and 0.62; P < .0001), uterus (kappa for PLN, RV, and PI was 0.45, 0.74, and 0.77; P < .0001), and parametria (kappa for PLN, RV, and PI was 0.49, 0.62, and 0.50; P < .0001). Contouring heterogeneity was greatest for the cervix (kappa measure for PLN, RV, and PI was 0.15, 0.4, and 0.24; P < .0001) and vagina (kappa for PLN, RV, and PI was 0.47, 0.36 and 0.46; P < .0001), reflecting difficulties in determining the interface between GTV and these tissues.Conclusion: Kappa statistics of the different CTV components generally demonstrated moderate to substantial agreement among international experts in the field of gynecological radiation therapy. Further planning target volume margins accounting for organ motion and setup errors are a necessary addition to the CTV. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society for Radiation Oncology. Show less
Purpose: Accurate target definition is vitally important for definitive treatment of cervix cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), yet a definition of clinical target volume (CTV)... Show morePurpose: Accurate target definition is vitally important for definitive treatment of cervix cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), yet a definition of clinical target volume (CTV) remains variable within the literature. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus CTV definition in preparation for a Phase 2 clinical trial being planned by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Methods and Materials: A guidelines consensus working group meeting was convened in June 2008 for the purposes of developing target definition guidelines fir IMRT for the intact cervix. A draft document of recommendations for CTV definition was created and used to aid in contouring a clinical case. The clinical case was then analyzed for consistency and clarity of target delineation using an expectation maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE), with kappa statistics as a measure of agreement between participants. Results: Nineteen experts in gynecological radiation oncology generated contours on axial magnetic resonance images of the pelvis. Substantial STAPLE agreement sensitivity and specificity values were seen for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation (0.84 and 0.96, respectively) with a kappa statistic of 0.68 (p < 0.0001). Agreement for delineation of cervix, uterus, vagina, and parametria was moderate. Conclusions: This report provides guidelines for CTV definition in the definitive cervix cancer setting for the purposes of IMRT, building on previously published guidelines for IMRT in the postoperative setting. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. Show less
