Investigation of variability in image acquisition and contouring during 3D ultrasound guidance for partial breast irradiation

Radiation Oncology

Wayne Beckham³  Ivo Olivotto²  Jill Wark⁴  Siew Yan Soh⁴  Letricia Sand⁴  Hazel Vey⁴  Tracy Mitchell⁴  Carmen Popescu³  Isabelle Gagne³  Tanya Berrang²  Anthony Landry¹ 

[1] Prince Edward Island Cancer Treatment Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 60 Riverside Drive, PO BOX 6600, Charlottetown, PE, Canada;Division of Radiation Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;Departments of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada;Radiation Therapy Program, BC Cancer Agency – Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada

关键词: Image guided radiotherapy;    3D ultrasound;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  814922
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-9-35

 received in 2013-07-05, accepted in 2014-01-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Three-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS) at simulation compared to 3DUS at treatment is an image guidance option for partial breast irradiation (PBI). This study assessed if user dependence in acquiring and contouring 3DUS (operator variability) contributed to variation in seroma shifts calculated for breast IGRT.

Methods

Eligible patients met breast criteria for current randomized PBI studies. 5 Operators participated in this study. For each patient, 3 operators were involved in scan acquisitions and 5 were involved in contouring. At CT simulation (CT1), a 3DUS (US1) was performed by a single radiation therapist (RT). 7 to 14 days after CT1 a second CT (CT2) and 3 sequential 3DUS scans (US2a,b,c) were acquired by each of 3 RTs. Seroma shifts, between US1 and US2 scans were calculated by comparing geometric centers of the seromas (centroids). Operator contouring variability was determined by comparing 5 RT’s contours for a single image set. Scanning variability was assessed by comparing shifts between multiple scans acquired at the same time point (US1-US2a,b,c). Shifts in seromas contoured on CT (CT1-CT2) were compared to US data.

Results

From an initial 28 patients, 15 had CT visible seromas, met PBI dosimetric constraints, had complete US data, and were analyzed. Operator variability contributed more to the overall variability in seroma localization than the variability associated with multiple scan acquisitions (95% confidence mean uncertainty of 6.2 mm vs. 1.1 mm). The mean standard deviation in seroma shift was user dependent and ranged from 1.7 to 2.9 mm. Mean seroma shifts from simulation to treatment were comparable to CT.

Conclusions

Variability in shifts due to different users acquiring and contouring 3DUS for PBI guidance were comparable to CT shifts. Substantial inter-observer effect needs to be considered during clinical implementation of 3DUS IGRT.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Landry et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Smith BD, Arthur DW, Buchholz TA, Haffty BG, Hahn CA, Hardenbergh PH, Julian TB, Marks LB, Todor DA, Vicini FA, Whelan TJ, White J, Wo JY, Harris JR: Accelerated partial breast irradiation consensus statement from the American society for radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:987-1001.
• [2]Prosnitz LR, Horton J, Wallner PE: Accelerated partial breast irradiation: caution and concern from an ASTRO task force. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:981-984.
• [3]Landis DM, Luo W, Song J, Bellon JR, Punglia RS, Wong JS, Killoran JH, Gelman R, Harris JR: Variability among breast radiation oncologists in delineation of the post surgical lumpectomy cavity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:1299-1308.
• [4]Benda RK, Yasuda G, Sethi A, Gabram SG, Hinerman RW, Mendenhall NP: Breast boost: are we missing the target? Cancer 2003, 97:905-909.
• [5]Fein DA, Fowble BL, Hanlon AL, Hoffman JP, Sigurdson ER, Eisenberg BL: Does the placement of surgical clips within the excision cavity influence local control for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and irradiation? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 34:1009-1017.
• [6]Goldberg H, Prosnitz RG, Olson JA, Marks LB: Definition of post-lumpectomy tumor bed for radiotherapy boost field planning: CT versus surgical clips. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 63:209-213.
• [7]Kirby AM, Coles C, Yarnold J: Target volume definition for external beam partial breast radiotherapy: clinical, pathological and technical studies informing current approaches. Radiother Oncol 2010, 94:255-263.
• [8]Gierga DP, Riboldi M, Turcotte JC, Sharp GC, Jiang SB, Tanghian AG, Chen GT: Comparison of target registration errors for multiple image guided techniques in accelerated partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 70(4):1239-1246.
• [9]Fraser DJ, Wong P, Sultanem K, Verhaegen F: Dosimetric evolution of the breast electron boost target using 3D ultrasound imaging. Radiother Oncol 2010, 96(2):185-91.
• [10]Wong P, Muanza T, Reynard E, Robert K, Barker J, Sultanem K: Use of three-dimensional ultrasound in the detection of breast tumor bed displacement during radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 79(1):39-45.
• [11]Berrang TS, Truong PT, Popescu C, Drever L, Kader HA, Hilts ML, Mitchell T, Soh SY, Sands L, Silver S, Olivotto IA: 3D ultrasound can contribute to planning CT to define the target for partial breast radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73(2):375-383.
• [12]Treece GM, Gee AH, Prager RW: RF and amplitude-based probe pressure correction for 3D ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31(4):493-503.
• [13]Berrang TS, Olivotto I, Kim DH, Nichol A, Cho BC, Mohamed IG, Parhar T, Wright JR, Truong P, Tyldesley S, Sussman J, Wai E, Whelan T: Three-year outcomes of a Canadian multicentre study of accelerated partial breast irradiation using conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 81(5):1220-1227.