title: Optimizing localization accuracy in head and neck, and brain radiotherapy.
abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact on localization of utilizing contrast-enhanced CT scans and the formal input of a radiologist in the planning process. 25 head and neck/brain patients had pre- and post-contrast CT scans in the treatment position. Radiotherapy treatment was planned on the unenhanced CT images as per standard practice. Retrospectively, their scans (unenhanced and enhanced) were re-contoured by two oncologists and a radiologist. These new contours were compared with the original unenhanced treatment contours and differences in contour volume, geographical isocentre position and tolerance coverage of the associated planning target volumes (PTVs) were evaluated using the original plans. The use of contrast enhanced CT data during localization by the oncologist shows little change in gross tumour volumes (GTVs) or PTVs, geographical position or tolerance coverage for the targets in the brain studied here. Larger changes in mean volume are seen for the head and neck cases alone. Changes are greater and statistically significant (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed rank test) for localization by the radiologist. Furthermore, when comparing the original PTV marked by the oncologist with a new PTV re-contoured by the oncologist, but based on a GTV marked-up by the radiologist, again statistically significant (p < 0.01) changes in percentage volume are noted. Intraoperator precision is good, percentage volume differences being of the order 3-6%. PTVs also show improved standard deviations compared with GTVs. Geographic shifts are generally within our departmental tolerance levels for daily patient setup. Comparing precision of unenhanced data with enhanced, mean percentage volume changes are smaller, but not statistically significant. The use of enhanced scan data for localization has little effect on size, geographical position or tolerance coverage of PTVs marked up by the oncologists in this study. However, more important is the input from a radiologist. Statistically significant differences due to mark-up on enhanced scans by the radiologist are shown. Furthermore, significant differences are also seen between PTVs based on oncologist-generated GTVs, and those based on radiologist-generated GTVs.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiotherapy Physics, Weston Park Hospital, Whitham Road, Sheffield, UK.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: McJury
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Dyker
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Nakielny
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Conway
authors.forename: M H
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Robinson
mesh_terms: D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D015588:Observer Variation; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*