PURPOSE: To quantify variations in target and normal structure contouring and evaluate dosimetric impact of these variations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To study whether providing an atlas can reduce potential variation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three NSCLC cases were distributed sequentially to multiple institutions for contouring and radiation therapy planning. No segmentation atlas was provided for the first 2 cases (Case 1 and Case 2). Contours were collected from submitted plans and consensus contour sets were generated. The volume variation among institution contours and the deviation of them from consensus contours were analyzed. The dose-volume histograms for individual institution plans were recalculated using consensus contours to quantify the dosimetric changes. An atlas containing targets and critical structures was constructed and was made available when the third case (Case 3) was distributed for planning. The contouring variability in the submitted plans of Case 3 was compared with that in first 2 cases. RESULTS: Planning target volume (PTV) showed large variation among institutions. The PTV coverage in institutions plans decreased dramatically when reevaluated using the consensus PTV contour. The PTV contouring consistency did not show improvement with atlas use in Case 3. For normal structures, lung contours presented very good agreement, while the brachial plexus showed the largest variation. The consistency of esophagus and heart contouring improved significantly (t test; P < .05) in Case 3. Major factors contributing to the contouring variation were identified through a survey questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of contouring variations in NSCLC cases was presented. Its impact on dosimetric parameters can be significant. The segmentation atlas improved the contour agreement for esophagus and heart, but not for the PTV in this study. Quality assurance of contouring is essential for a successful multi-institutional clinical trial.

Purpose

To quantify variations in target and normal structure contouring and evaluate dosimetric impact of these variations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. To study whether providing an atlas can reduce potential variation.

Methods and materials

Three NSCLC cases were distributed sequentially to multiple institutions for contouring and radiation therapy planning. No segmentation atlas was provided for the first 2 cases (Case 1 and Case 2). Contours were collected from submitted plans and consensus contour sets were generated. The volume variation among institution contours and the deviation of them from consensus contours were analyzed. The dose-volume histograms for individual institution plans were recalculated using consensus contours to quantify the dosimetric changes. An atlas containing targets and critical structures was constructed and was made available when the third case (Case 3) was distributed for planning. The contouring variability in the submitted plans of Case 3 was compared with that in first 2 cases.

Results

Planning target volume (PTV) showed large variation among institutions. The PTV coverage in institutions' plans decreased dramatically when reevaluated using the consensus PTV contour. The PTV contouring consistency did not show improvement with atlas use in Case 3. For normal structures, lung contours presented very good agreement, while the brachial plexus showed the largest variation. The consistency of esophagus and heart contouring improved significantly (t test; P < .05) in Case 3. Major factors contributing to the contouring variation were identified through a survey questionnaire.

Conclusions

The amount of contouring variations in NSCLC cases was presented. Its impact on dosimetric parameters can be significant. The segmentation atlas improved the contour agreement for esophagus and heart, but not for the PTV in this study. Quality assurance of contouring is essential for a successful multi-institutional clinical trial.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to quantify the frequency and clinical severity of quality deficiencies in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol.

Methods and materials

A total of 219 IMRT patients from the high-dose arm (79.2 Gy) of RTOG 0126 were analyzed. To quantify plan quality, we used established knowledge-based methods for patient-specific dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction of organs at risk and a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model for grade ≥2 rectal complications to convert DVHs into normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). The LKB model was validated by fitting dose-response parameters relative to observed toxicities. The 90th percentile (22 of 219) of plans with the lowest excess risk (difference between clinical and model-predicted NTCP) were used to create a model for the presumed best practices in the protocol (pDVH0126,top10%). Applying the resultant model to the entire sample enabled comparisons between DVHs that patients could have received to DVHs they actually received. Excess risk quantified the clinical impact of suboptimal planning. Accuracy of pDVH predictions was validated by replanning 30 of 219 patients (13.7%), including equal numbers of presumed "high-quality," "low-quality," and randomly sampled plans. NTCP-predicted toxicities were compared to adverse events on protocol.

Results

Existing models showed that bladder-sparing variations were less prevalent than rectum quality variations and that increased rectal sparing was not correlated with target metrics (dose received by 98% and 2% of the PTV, respectively). Observed toxicities were consistent with current LKB parameters. Converting DVH and pDVH0126,top10% to rectal NTCPs, we observed 94 of 219 patients (42.9%) with ≥5% excess risk, 20 of 219 patients (9.1%) with ≥10% excess risk, and 2 of 219 patients (0.9%) with ≥15% excess risk. Replanning demonstrated the predicted NTCP reductions while maintaining the volume of the PTV receiving prescription dose. An equivalent sample of high-quality plans showed fewer toxicities than low-quality plans, 6 of 73 versus 10 of 73 respectively, although these differences were not significant (P=.21) due to insufficient statistical power in this retrospective study.

Conclusions

Plan quality deficiencies in RTOG 0126 exposed patients to substantial excess risk for rectal complications.