Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28695316›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2017

Interobserver variability in target volume delineation of hepatocellular carcinoma : An analysis of the working group "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).

E Gkika, S Tanadini-Lang, S Kirste, P A Holzner, H P Neeff, H C Rischke, T Reese, F Lohaus, M N Duma, K Dieckmann and 10 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Contouring aid tools in radiotherapy. Smoothing: the false friend.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

E GkikaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. eleni.gkika@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5455-252X
S Tanadini-LangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
S KirsteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
P A HolznerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
H P NeeffDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
H C RischkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
T ReeseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle-Wittenberg, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
F LohausDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
M N DumaInstitute of Innovative Radiotherapy, Department of Radiation Sciences, Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, Munich, Germany.
K DieckmannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, General Hospital Vienna, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
R SemrauDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
M StockingerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
D ImhoffDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
N KremersDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
M F HäfnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
N AndratschkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
U NestleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
A L GrosuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
M GuckenbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
T B BrunnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DEUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHGerman Cancer Research Center · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEHeidelberg University · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DETUM Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEVienna General Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDefinition of gross tumor volume (GTV) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires dedicated imaging in multiple contrast medium phases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement (IOA) in gross tumor delineation of HCC in a multicenter panel.

methodsThe analysis was performed within the "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" working group of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The GTVs of three anonymized HCC cases were delineated by 16 physicians from nine centers using multiphasic CT scans. In the first case the tumor was well defined. The second patient had multifocal HCC (one conglomerate and one peripheral tumor) and was previously treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The peripheral lesion was adjacent to the previous TACE site. The last patient had an extensive HCC with a portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and an inhomogeneous liver parenchyma due to cirrhosis. The IOA was evaluated according to Landis and Koch.

resultsThe IOA for the first case was excellent (kappa: 0.85); for the second case moderate (kappa: 0.48) for the peripheral tumor and substantial (kappa: 0.73) for the conglomerate. In the case of the peripheral tumor the inconsistency is most likely explained by the necrotic tumor cavity after TACE caudal to the viable tumor. In the last case the IOA was fair, with a kappa of 0.34, with significant heterogeneity concerning the borders of the tumor and the PVT.

conclusionThe IOA was very good among the cases were the tumor was well defined. In complex cases, where the tumor did not show the typical characteristics, or in cases with Lipiodol (Guerbet, Paris, France) deposits, IOA agreement was compromised.

Indexed as

Tumor BurdenAgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyGTV definitionGTV delineationSBRTStereotactic body radiotherapyToxicity

Identifiers

PMID28695316
OpenAlexW2735760954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.