Background and purpose: To study the impact of coronal and sagittal views (CSV) on the gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation on CT and matched PET/CT scans in non-small cell lung cancer.Material and... Show moreBackground and purpose: To study the impact of coronal and sagittal views (CSV) on the gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation on CT and matched PET/CT scans in non-small cell lung cancer.Material and methods: GTV delineations were performed by 11 experienced radiation oncologists on CT and PET/CT in 22 patients. Two tumor groups were defined: Group I: Primary tumors surrounded by lung or visceral pleura, without venous invasion, and without large extensions to the chest wall or the mediastinum. Group II: Tumors invading the hilar region, heart, large vessels, pericardium, and the mediastinum and/or associated with atelectasis. Tumor volumes and inter-observers variations (SD) were calculated and compared according to the use of axial view only (AW), axial/coronal/sagittal views (ACSW) and ACSW/PET (ACSWP).Results: CSV were not frequently used (57.4% out of 242 delineations on CT). For group I, ACSW didn't improve significantly mean GTVs. SDs were small on CT and on PET (SD = 0.3 cm). For group II, ACSW had 27-46% smaller observer variation (mean SD = 0.7 cm) than AW (mean SD = 1.1 cm). The smaller observer variation of ACSW users was associated with, on average, a 40% smaller delineated volume (p = 0.038). Mean GTV of ACSWP was 21% larger than mean GTV of ACSW on CT.Conclusions: For smaller lung tumors surrounded by healthy lung tissue the effect of multiple axis delineation is limited. However, application of coronal and sagittal windows is highly beneficial for delineation of more complex tumors, with atelectasis and/or pathological lymph nodes even if PET is used. (C) 2016 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
The purpose of this study was the prospective comparison of objective and subjective effects of target volume region of interest (ROI) delineation using mouse-keyboard and pen-tablet user input... Show moreThe purpose of this study was the prospective comparison of objective and subjective effects of target volume region of interest (ROI) delineation using mouse-keyboard and pen-tablet user input devices (UIDs). The study was designed as a prospective test/retest sequence, with Wilcoxon signed rank test for matched-pair comparison. Twenty-one physician-observers contoured target volume ROIs on four standardized cases (representative of brain, prostate, lung, and head and neck malignancies) twice: once using QWERTY keyboard/scroll-wheel mouse UID and once with pen-tablet UID (DTX2100, Wacom Technology Corporation, Vancouver, WA, USA). Active task time, ROI manipulation task data, and subjective survey data were collected. One hundred twenty-nine target volume ROI sets were collected, with 62 paired pen-tablet/mouse-keyboard sessions. Active contouring time was reduced using the pen-tablet UID, with mean +/- SD active contouring time of 26 +/- 23 min, compared with 32 +/- 25 with the mouse (p a parts per thousand currency signaEuro parts per thousand 0.01). Subjective estimation of time spent was also reduced from 31 +/- 26 with mouse to 27 +/- 22 min with the pen (p = 0.02). Task analysis showed ROI correction task reduction (p = 0.045) and decreased panning and scrolling tasks (p < 0.01) with the pen-tablet; drawing, window/level changes, and zoom commands were unchanged (p = n.s.) Volumetric analysis demonstrated no detectable differences in ROI volume nor intra- or inter-observer volumetric coverage. Fifty-two of 62 (84%) users preferred the tablet for each contouring task; 5 of 62 (8%) denoted no preference, and 5 of 62 (8%) chose the mouse interface. The pen-tablet UID reduced active contouring time and reduced correction of ROIs, without substantially altering ROI volume/coverage. Show less
