ArticlePloS one2016
Harmonization of the Volume of Interest Delineation among All Eleven Radiotherapy Centers in the North of France.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an ultrasound bladder scanner in supine and standing position.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Delineation of the Prostate Bed: The "Invisible Target" Is Still an Issue?Frontiers in oncology · 2017Article
- Elective Nodal Irradiation for Oligorecurrent Nodal Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Variability in the PEACE V-STORM Randomized Phase 2 Trial.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInter-observer delineation variation has been detailed for many years in almost every tumor location. Inadequate delineation can impair the chance of cure and/or increase toxicity. The aim of our original work was to prospectively improve the homogeneity of delineation among all of the senior radiation oncologists in the Nord-Pas de Calais region, irrespective of the conditions of practice.
methodsAll 11 centers were involved. The first studied cancer was prostate cancer. Three clinical cases were studied: a low-risk prostate cancer case (case 1), a high-risk prostate cancer case (pelvic nodes, case 2) and a case of post-operative biochemical elevated PSA (case 3). All of the involved physicians delineated characteristically the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk. The volumes were compared using validated indexes: the volume ratio (VR), common and additional volumes (CV and AV), volume overlap (VO) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A second delineation of the same three cases was performed after discussion of the slice results and the choice of shared guidelines to evaluate homogenization. A comparative analysis of the indexes before and after discussion was conducted using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
resultsThe indexes were not improved in case 1, for which the inter-observer agreement was considered good after the first comparison (DSC = 0.83 ± 0.06). In case 2, the second comparison showed homogenization of the CTV delineation with a significant improvement in CV (81.4 ± 11.7 vs. 88.6 ± 10.26, respectively, p = 0.048), VO (0.41 ± 0.09 vs. 0.47 ± 0.07, respectively; p = 0.009) and DSC (0.58 ± 0.09 vs. 0.63 ± 0.07, respectively; p = 0.0098). In case 3, VR and AV were significantly improved: VR: 1.71(± 0.6) vs. 1.34(± 0.46), respectively, p = 0.0034; AV: 46.58(± 14.50) vs. 38.08(± 15.10), respectively, p = 0.0024. DSC was not improved, but it was already superior to 0.6 in the first comparison.
conclusionOur prospective work showed that a collaborative discussion about clinical cases and the choice of shared guidelines within an established framework improved the homogeneity of CTV delineation among the senior radiation oncologists in our region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.