Purpose: Manual contouring of organs-at-risk (OARs) in radiotherapy planning is a time-consuming and labor-intensive task that is prone to inter- and intra-observer variabilities. Additionally, contours drawn prior to treatment may not accurately reflect the patient’s anatomy throughout the entire treatment course, meaning that doses planned based on pre-treatment contours may not correspond to the actual delivered doses. This study seeks to explore the impact of OAR contour accuracy on prostate radiotherapy outcomes. Methods: OARs (bladder and rectum) were manually delineated on planning CT and daily CBCT images for 20 patients. Atlas-based segmentation algorithms were used to automatically generate OAR contours on the planning CT scans. Both low-risk (LRP, CTV = Prostate) and intermediate-risk (IRP, CTV = Prostate+SV) patient groups were simulated. Treatment plans were created via a novel automated planning application that utilized a knowledge-based planning solution for both auto-generated OARs (aOAR-plan) and manual delineated OARs (mOAR-plan). Planned doses were transferred from CT to CBCTs based on clinical shifts, and contour-based deformable registrations were applied to calculate the cumulative doses. Cumulative dose differences for OARs were used to assess the agreement between aOAR- and mOAR-plans. Additionally, five patients were selected to compare the cumulative dose differences between the transferred and re-calculated doses on CBCT. Results: The Overlap index/Dice similarity coefficient between auto- and manual-contours was 0.89 ± 0.10/0.77 ± 0.11 for the bladder and 0.76 ± 0.15/0.70 ± 0.07 for the rectum. Both LRP and IRP groups demonstrated good dosimetric agreements between aOAR- and mOAR-plans. No significant OAR dose differences between the transferred and re-calculated doses were observed. Conclusion: Contours manually drawn prior to treatment are being used to represent patient anatomy that can fluctuate by several millimeters daily, which raises questions about the time and effort involved. Automated contouring tools enhance contour consistency and deliver acceptable doses, providing a more reliable alternative to manual contours in prostate radiotherapy.
References
[1]
Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D. and Jemal, A. (2019) Cancer Statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 69, 7-34. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551
[2]
Mattiuzzi, C. and Lippi, G. (2019) Current Cancer Epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, 9, 217-222. https://doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.191008.001
[3]
Hamdy, F.C., Donovan, J.L., Lane, J.A., Mason, M., Metcalfe, C., Holding, P., et al. (2016) 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 1415-1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1606220
[4]
Podder, T.K., Fredman, E.T. and Ellis, R.J. (2018) Advances in Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Treatment. In: Schatten, H., Ed., Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Springer International Publishing, 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99286-0_2
[5]
Fiorino, C., Reni, M., Bolognesi, A., Cattaneo, G.M. and Calandrino, R. (1998) Intra-and Inter-Observer Variability in Contouring Prostate and Seminal Vesicles: Implications for Conformal Treatment Planning. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 47, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8140(98)00021-8
[6]
Huq, M.S., Fraass, B.A., Dunscombe, P.B., Gibbons, J.P., Ibbott, G.S., Mundt, A.J., et al. (2016) The Report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Radiation Therapy Quality Management. Medical Physics, 43, 4209-4262. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4947547
[7]
Alasti, H., Cho, Y., Catton, C., Berlin, A., Chung, P., Bayley, A., et al. (2017) Evaluation of High Dose Volumetric CT to Reduce Inter-Observer Delineation Variability and PTV Margins for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 125, 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.012
[8]
Liu, H., Amaloo, C., Sintay, B. and Wiant, D. (2021) Dosimetric Effects Due to Inter-Observer Variability of Organ Contouring When Utilizing a Knowledge-Based Planning System for Prostate Cancer. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 10, 47-58. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2021.102005
[9]
Lee, W.R., Roach, M., Michalski, J., Moran, B. and Beyer, D. (2002) Interobserver Variability Leads to Significant Differences in Quantifiers of Prostate Implant Adequacy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 54, 457-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02950-4
[10]
Vinod, S.K., Min, M., Jameson, M.G. and Holloway, L.C. (2016) A Review of Interventions to Reduce Inter‐Observer Variability in Volume Delineation in Radiation Oncology. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 60, 393-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12462
[11]
Lim, T.Y., Gillespie, E., Murphy, J. and Moore, K.L. (2019) Clinically Oriented Contour Evaluation Using Dosimetric Indices Generated from Automated Knowledge-Based Planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 103, 1251-1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.048
[12]
Tsuji, S.Y., Hwang, A., Weinberg, V., Yom, S.S., Quivey, J.M. and Xia, P. (2010) Dosimetric Evaluation of Automatic Segmentation for Adaptive IMRT for Head-and-Neck Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 77, 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.012
[13]
Otto, K. (2007) Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy: IMRT in a Single Gantry Arc. Medical Physics, 35, 310-317. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738
[14]
Yoo, S., Wu, Q.J., Lee, W.R. and Yin, F. (2010) Radiotherapy Treatment Plans with Rapidarc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles and Lymph Nodes. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 76, 935-942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677
