Cargando…

Target volume delineation in breast conserving radiotherapy: are co-registered CT and MR images of added value?

INTRODUCTION: In breast conserving radiotherapy differences of target volume delineations between observers do occur. We evaluated whether delineations based on co-registered computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may result in an improved consistency between observers. We used...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mast, Mirjam, Coerkamp, Emile, Heijenbrok, Mark, Scholten, Astrid, Jansen, Wim, Kouwenhoven, Erik, Nijkamp, Jasper, de Waard, Stephanie, Petoukhova, Anna, Struikmans, Henk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24571843
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-65
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: In breast conserving radiotherapy differences of target volume delineations between observers do occur. We evaluated whether delineations based on co-registered computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may result in an improved consistency between observers. We used the delineation conformity index (CI) to compare clinical target volumes of glandular breast tissue (CTV breast) and lumpectomy cavity (LC) on both imaging modalities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four observers delineated CTV breast and LC on co-registered CTMR images in ten breast cancer patients. CIs were determined for CT and CTMR. Furthermore, the Cavity Visualization Score (CVS) of LC was taken into account. RESULTS: The mean CI for CTV breast (CI(CT;CTV): 0.82 and CI(CT-CTMR;CTV): 0.80) and LC (CI(CT;LC): 0.52 and CI(CT-CTMR;LC): 0.48) did not differ significantly (p = 0.07 and p = 0.33, respectively). Taking CVS into account for the LC, with a CVS ≥ 4 the mean CI was 0.62 for both CI(CT;LC) and CI(CT-CTMR;LC). CONCLUSION: The mean volume of the delineated glandular breast tissue based on CT was significantly larger compared to the volume based on CTMR. For patients with a CVS ≥ 4, the mean CIs of the LC were higher compared to CVS < 4 for volumes delineated on both CT as well as CTMR images. In our study cohort no significant differences between the CIs of the CTV breast and the LC delineated on CTMR co-registered images were found compared to the CIs on CT images only. Adding MR images does not seem to improve consistency of the delineation of the CTV breast and the LC, even though the volumes were copied from CT images. Since we included only ten patients, caution should be taken with regard to the results of our study.