nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.01.2014 | Original article

Prostate positioning using cone-beam computer tomography based on manual soft-tissue registration

Interobserver agreement between radiation oncologists and therapists

verfasst von: B.A. Jereczek-Fossa, MD PhD, C. Pobbiati, BS, L. Santoro, MSc, C. Fodor, MSc, P. Fanti, MD, S. Vigorito, MSc, G. Baroni, PhD, D. Zerini, MD, O. De Cobelli, MD, R. Orecchia, MD

Erschienen in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To check the interobserver agreement between radiation oncologists and therapists (RTT) using an on- and off-line cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) protocol for setup verification in the radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

The CBCT data from six prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were independently reviewed off-line by four observers (one radiation oncologist, one junior and two senior RTTs) and benchmarked with on-line CBCT positioning performed by a radiation oncologist immediately prior to treatment. CBCT positioning was based on manual soft-tissue registration. Agreement between observers was evaluated using weighted Cohen’s kappa statistics.

Results

In total, 152 CBCT-based prostate positioning procedures were reviewed by each observer. The mean (± standard deviation) of the differences between off- and on-line CBCT–simCT registration translations along the three directions (antero-posterior, latero-lateral and cranio-caudal) and rotation around the antero-posterior axis were − 0.7 (3.6) mm, 1.9 (2.7) mm, 0.9 (3.6) mm and − 1.8 (5.0) degrees, respectively. Satisfactory interobserver agreement was found, being substantial (weighted kappa > 0.6) in 10 of 16 comparisons and moderate (0.41–0.60) in the remaining six comparisons.

Conclusions

CBCT interpretation performed by RTTs is comparable to that of radiation oncologists. Our study might be helpful in the quality assurance of radiotherapy and the optimization of competencies. Further investigation should include larger sample sizes, a greater number of observers and validated methodology in order to assess interobserver variability and its impact on high-precision prostate cancer IGRT. In the future, it should enable the wider implementation of complex and evolving radiotherapy technologies.

Alongi F, Fogliata A, Navarria P et al (2012) Moderate hypofractionation and simultaneous integrated boost with volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) for prostate cancer: report of feasibility and acute toxicity. Strahlenther Onkol 188:990–996PubMedCrossRef

Barney BM, Lee RJ, Handrahan D et al (2011) Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer comparing kV imaging of fiducial markers with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80:301–305PubMedCrossRef

Burnet NG, Adams EJ, Fairfoul J et al (2010) Practical aspects of implementation of helical tomotherapy for intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 22:294–312

Choi HJ, Kim YS, Lee SH et al (2011) Inter- and intra-observer variability in contouring of the prostate gland on planning computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography. Acta Oncol 50:539–546PubMedCrossRef

Coffey M, Degerfält J, Osztavics A et al (2004) Revised European core curriculum for RTs. Radiother Oncol 70:137–158PubMedCrossRef

Delouya G, Carrier JF, Béliveau-Nadeau D et al (2010) Migration of intraprostatic fiducial markers and its influence on the matching quality in external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 96:43–47PubMedCrossRef

Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH et al (2009) Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Br J Cancer 100:901–907PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Eriksen JG, Beavis AW, Coffey MA et al (2012) The updated ESTRO core curricula 2011 for clinicians, medical physicists and RTTs in radiotherapy/radiation oncology. Radiother Oncol 103:103–108PubMedCrossRef

Fonteyne V, Ost P, Villeirs G et al (2012) Improving positioning in high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer: safety and visibility of frequently used gold fiducial markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:46–52PubMedCrossRef

10.

Fotina I, Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Stock M et al (2012) Critical discussion of evaluation parameters for inter-observer variability in target definition for radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 188:160–167PubMedCrossRef

11.

Geier M, Astner ST, Duma MN et al (2012) Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated-boost treatment of prostate cancer patients via helical tomotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 188:410–416PubMedCrossRef

12.

Jereczek-Fossa BA, Santoro L, Colangione S et al (2012) Electronic portal imaging registration in breast cancer radiotherapy verification: analysis of inter-observer agreement among different categories of health practitioners. Neoplasm 60:302–308CrossRef

13.

Jereczek-Fossa BA, Zerini D, Fodor C et al (2011) Acute toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: nonrandomized comparison with conventional fractionation. Urol Oncol 29:523–532PubMedCrossRef

14.

Korreman S, Rasch C, McNair H et al (2010) The European Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology-European Institute of Radiotherapy (ESTRO-EIR) report on 3D CT-based in-room image guidance systems: a practical and technical review and guide. Radiother Oncol 94:129–144PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kruse JJ, Herman MG, Hagness CR et al (2002) Electronic and film portal images: a comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:584–591PubMedCrossRef

16.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lewis DG, Ryan KR, Smith CW (2005) Observer variability when evaluating patient movement from electronic portal images of pelvic radiotherapy fields. Radiother Oncol 74:275–281PubMedCrossRef

18.

Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Fotina I, Stock M et al (2011) Feasibility of CBCT-based target and normal structure delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: multi-observer and image multi-modality study. Radiother Oncol 98:154–161PubMedCrossRef

19.

Müller AC, Lütjens J, Alber M et al (2012) Toxicity and outcome of pelvic IMRT for node-positive prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 188:982–989PubMedCrossRef

20.

Morrow NV, Lawton CA, Qi XS, Li XA (2012) Impact of computed tomography image quality on image-guided radiation therapy based on soft tissue registration. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:e733–e738PubMedCrossRef

21.

Nightingale J, Hogg P (2007) The role of the GI radiographer: a United Kingdom perspective. Radiol Technol 78:284–290PubMed

22.

Pinkawa M, Piroth MD, Holy R et al (2012) Quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer with a hydrogel spacer: matched-pair analysis. Strahlenther Onkol 188:917–925PubMedCrossRef

23.

Piziorska M, Kukołowicz P, Zawadzka A et al (2012) Adaptive off-line protocol for prostate external radiotherapy with cone beam computer tomography. Strahlenther Onkol 188:1003–1009PubMedCrossRef

24.

Potter R, Eriksen JG, Beavis AW et al (2012) Competencies in radiation oncology: a new approach for education and training of professionals for radiotherapy and oncology in Europe. Radiother Oncol 103:1–4PubMedCrossRef

25.

Probst H, Griffiths S, Adams R, Hill C (2012) Burnout in therapy radiographers in the UK. Br J Radiol 85:e760–e765PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Shi W, Li JG, Zlotecki RA et al (2011) Evaluation of kV cone-beam ct performance for prostate IGRT: a comparison of automatic grey-value alignment to implanted fiducial-marker alignment. Am J Clin Oncol 34:16–21PubMedCrossRef

27.

Sierra F, Cardenas A (2007) Evidence-based medicine (EBM) in practice: agreement between observers rating esophageal varices: how to cope with chance? Am J Gastroenterol 102:2363–2366PubMedCrossRef

28.

Smith TN, Baird M (2007) Radiographers’ role in radiological reporting: a model to support future demand. Med J Aust 186:629–631PubMed

29.

Szumacher E, Harnett N, Warner S et al (2010) Effectiveness of educational intervention on the congruence of prostate and rectal contouring as compared with a gold standard in three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:379–385PubMedCrossRef

30.

Viera A, Garrett J (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the Kappa statistic. Fam Med 37:360–363PubMed

31.

White EA, Brock KK, Jaffray DA, Catton CN (2009) Inter-observer variability of prostate delineation on cone beam computerised tomography images. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 21:32–38

32.

White E, Kane G (2007) Radiation medicine practice in the image-guided radiation therapy era: new roles and new opportunities. Semin Radiat Oncol 17:298–305PubMedCrossRef

33.

Zucca S, Carau B, Solla I et al (2011) Prostate image-guided radiotherapy by megavolt cone-beam CT. Strahlenther Onkol 187:473–478PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Prostate positioning using cone-beam computer tomography based on manual soft-tissue registration
Interobserver agreement between radiation oncologists and therapists
verfasst von: B.A. Jereczek-Fossa, MD PhD
C. Pobbiati, BS
L. Santoro, MSc
C. Fodor, MSc
P. Fanti, MD
S. Vigorito, MSc
G. Baroni, PhD
D. Zerini, MD
O. De Cobelli, MD
R. Orecchia, MD
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0179-7158
Elektronische ISSN: 1439-099X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-013-0387-1

Springer Medizin

Prostate positioning using cone-beam computer tomography based on manual soft-tissue registration

Interobserver agreement between radiation oncologists and therapists