Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33640196›Full record

ArticleClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2021

An Inter-observer Study to Determine Radiotherapy Planning Target Volumes for Recurrent Gynaecological Cancer Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Only With Computed Tomography-Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

D Bernstein, A Taylor, S Nill, G Imseeh, G Kothari, M Llewelyn, K N De Paepe, A Rockall, A-M Shiarli, U Oelfke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

D BernsteinJoint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: david.bernstein@icr.ac.uk.
A TaylorGynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S NillJoint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, London, UK.
G ImseehGynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, London, UK.
G KothariGynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
M LlewelynGynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
K N De PaepeRadiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
A RockallDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
A-M ShiarliGynaecology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
U OelfkeJoint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21993Cancer Research UK 28284Cancer Research UK C33589/A19727Department of Health HCS DRF-2014-05-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTarget delineation uncertainty is arguably the largest source of geometric uncertainty in radiotherapy. Several factors can affect it, including the imaging modality used for delineation. It is accounted for by applying safety margins to the target to produce a planning target volume (PTV), to which treatments are designed. To determine the margin, the delineation uncertainty is measured as the delineation error, and then a margin recipe used. However, there is no published evidence of such analysis for recurrent gynaecological cancers (RGC). The aims of this study were first to quantify the delineation uncertainty for RGC gross tumour volumes (GTVs) and to calculate the associated PTV margins and then to quantify the difference in GTV, delineation uncertainty and PTV margin, between a computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) and MRI workflow. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeven clinicians delineated the GTV for 20 RGC tumours on co-registered CT and MRI datasets (CT-MRI) and on MRI alone. The delineation error, the standard deviation of distances from each clinician's outline to a reference, was measured and the required PTV margin determined. Differences between using CT-MRI and MRI alone were assessed.

resultsThe overall delineation error and the resulting margin were 3.1 mm and 8.5 mm, respectively, for CT-MRI, reducing to 2.5 mm and 7.1 mm, respectively, for MRI alone. Delineation errors and therefore the theoretical margins, varied widely between patients. MRI tumour volumes were on average 15% smaller than CT-MRI tumour volumes. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to quantify delineation error for RGC tumours and to calculate the corresponding PTV margin. The determined margins were larger than those reported in the literature for similar patients, bringing into question both current margins and margin calculation methods. The wide variation in delineation error between these patients suggests that applying a single population-based margin may result in PTVs that are suboptimal for many. Finally, the reduced tumour volumes and safety margins suggest that patients with RGC may benefit from an MRI-only treatment workflow.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedTumor BurdenDelineation uncertaintyplanning target volumeradiotherapyrecurrent gynaecological cancer

Identifiers

PMID33640196
PMCPMC8051139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.