BACKGROUND: Prostate alignment is subject to interobserver variability in cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based soft-tissue matching. This study aims to analyze the impact of possible interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching for prostate cancer radiotherapy.
METHODS: Retrospective data, consisting of 156 CBCT images from twelve prostate cancer patients with elective nodal irradiation were analyzed in this study. To simulate possible interobserver variability, couch shifts of 2 mm relative to the resulting patient position of prostate alignment were assumed as potential patient positions (27 possibilities). For each CBCT, the doses of the potential patient positions were re-calculated using deformable image registration-based synthetic CT. The impact of the simulated interobserver variability was evaluated using tumor control probabilities (TCPs) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs).
RESULTS: No significant differences in TCPs were found between prostate alignment and potential patient positions (0.944 ± 0.003 vs 0.945 ± 0.003, P = 0.117). The average NTCPs of the rectum ranged from 5.16 to 7.29 (%) among the potential patient positions and were highly influenced by the couch shift in the anterior-posterior direction. In contrast, the average NTCPs of the bladder ranged from 0.75 to 1.12 (%) among the potential patient positions and were relatively negligible.
CONCLUSIONS: The NTCPs of the rectum, rather than the TCPs of the target, were highly influenced by the interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching. This study provides a theoretical explanation for daily CBCT-based image guidance and the prostate-rectum interface matching procedure.
BACKGROUND: Not applicable.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the interobserver variability (IOV) in target volume delineation of definitive radiotherapy for thoracic esophageal cancer (TEC) among cancer centers in China, and ultimately improve contouring consistency as much as possible to lay the foundation for multi-center prospective studies.
METHODS: Sixteen cancer centers throughout China participated in this study. In Phase 1, three suitable cases with upper, middle, and lower TEC were chosen, and participants were asked to contour a group of gross tumor volume (GTV-T), nodal gross tumor volume (GTV-N) and clinical target volume (CTV) for each case based on their routine experience. In Phase 2, the same clinicians were instructed to follow a contouring protocol to re-contour another group of target volume. The variation of the target volume was analyzed and quantified using dice similarity coefficient (DSC).
RESULTS: Sixteen clinicians provided routine volumes, whereas ten provided both routine and protocol volumes for each case. The IOV of routine GTV-N was the most striking in all cases, with the smallest DSC of 0.37 (95% CI 0.32-0.42), followed by CTV, whereas GTV-T showed high consistency. After following the protocol, the smallest DSC of GTV-N was improved to 0.64 (95% CI 0.45-0.83, P = 0.005) but the DSC of GTV-T and CTV remained constant in most cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Variability in target volume delineation was observed, but it could be significantly reduced and controlled using mandatory interventions.

To evaluate the variability of quantitative measurements of metastatic liver lesions by using a multi-radiation-dose-level and multi-reader comparison.
Twenty-three study subjects (mean age, 60 years) with 39 liver lesions who underwent a single-energy dual-source contrast-enhanced staging CT between June 2015 and December 2015 were included. CT data were reconstructed with seven different radiation dose levels (ranging from 25 to 100%) on the basis of a single CT acquisition. Four radiologists independently performed manual tumor measurements and two radiologists performed semi-automated tumor measurements. Interobserver, intraobserver, and interdose sources of variability for longest diameter and volumetric measurements were estimated and compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and intraclass correlation coefficients.
Inter- and intraobserver variabilities for manual measurements of the longest diameter were higher compared to semi-automated measurements (p < 0.001 for overall). Inter- and intraobserver variabilities of volume measurements were higher compared to the longest diameter measurement (p < 0.001 for overall). Quantitative measurements were statistically different at < 50% radiation dose levels for semi-automated measurements of the longest diameter, and at 25% radiation dose level for volumetric measurements. The variability related to radiation dose was not significantly different from the inter- and intraobserver variability for the measurements of the longest diameter.
The variability related to radiation dose is comparable to the inter- and intraobserver variability for measurements of the longest diameter. Caution should be warranted in reducing radiation dose level below 50% of a conventional CT protocol due to the potentially detrimental impact on the assessment of lesion response in the liver.

Background: Although the supine position remains the dominant position for external-beam partial breast irradiation (EB-PBI), the advantages of administering EB-PBI in the prone position have been recognized. The interobserver variability between target volumes delineated in the different positions for EB-PBI after breast-conserving surgery needs to be investigated. Methods: Twenty-seven patients suitable for EB-PBI were enrolled from July 2016 to April 2017. Supine and prone simulation CT images were sequentially acquired for all enrolled patients during free breathing. Five experienced radiotherapists delineated the target volumes for all patients on supine and prone simulation CT images. The selected parameters, including target volumes, the coefficient of variation (COV), the matching degree (MD), and so on, were calculated to analyze the interobserver variability. Results: Regardless of the patient position, the interobserver variability between tumor bed (TB) and clinical target volume (CTV) measurements in supine and prone positions were statistically significant (F = 31.34, 19.467; 44.000, 41.985; P = 0.000, 0.001; 0.000, 0.001). The interobserver variability of COVCTV was significantly greater in the supine position than in the prone position (T = 2.64, P = 0.014). Furthermore, the interobserver variabilities of MDTB and MDCTV were statistically lower in the supine position than in the prone position (Z = -3.460, -3.195, P = 0.000, 0.001). Conclusion: When delineating the target volume for EB-PBI, the interobserver variability in the prone position was lower than that in the supine position. Hence, the administration of EB-PBI in the prone position during free breathing is a reasonable option.

BACKGROUND: Stent thrombosis (ST) is an important end point in cardiovascular clinical trials. Adjudication is traditionally based on clinical event committee (CEC) review of case report forms and source documentation rather than angiograms. However, the degree to which this method of adjudication is concordant with the review of independent angiographic core laboratories (ACLs) has not been studied. This report represents the first assessment of variability between local investigators (LIs), a CEC, and an ACL.
RESULTS: Serial angiograms of 329 patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment-elevation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at entry in the Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Particpants With Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) and who met criteria for possible ST subsequent to the index event were reviewed by an ACL. The ACL was blinded to the assessment by both LIs and the CEC regarding the presence or absence of ST. CEC adjudication was based on Academic Research Consortium definitions of ST, using case report form data and source documents, including catheterization laboratory reports. The ACL, CEC, and LIs agreed on the presence or absence of ST in 52.9% events (κ=0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.39). The ACL and CEC agreed on 82.7% of events (κ=0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.67); the ACL and LIs agreed on 61.1% of events (κ=0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.34); and the CEC and LIs agreed on 62% of events (κ=0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.36).
CONCLUSIONS: ST reporting by an ACL, a CEC, and LIs is discordant. The assessment of ST is more often detected by direct review of angiograms by an ACL.
BACKGROUND: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00527943.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to define consensus guidelines for delineating organs at risk (OARs) for head and neck radiotherapy for routine daily practice and for research purposes.
METHODS: Consensus guidelines were formulated based on in-depth discussions of a panel of European, North American, Asian and Australian radiation oncologists.
RESULTS: Twenty-five OARs in the head and neck region were defined with a concise description of their main anatomic boundaries. The Supplemental material provides an atlas of the consensus guidelines, projected on 1mm axial slices. The atlas can also be obtained in DICOM-RT format on request.
CONCLUSIONS: Consensus guidelines for head and neck OAR delineation were defined, aiming to decrease interobserver variability among clinicians and radiotherapy centers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of region of interest (ROI) on tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements and interobserver variability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
METHODS: Twenty-two patients recruited with pathology-proven PDAC underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI, 3.0T) prior to the surgical resection. Two independent readers measured tumor ADCs according to three ROI methods: whole-volume, single-slice, and small solid sample of tumor. Minimum and mean ADCs were obtained. The interobserver variability for each of the three methods was analyzed using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. The minimum and mean ADCs among the ROI methods were compared using nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: The single-slice ROI method showed the best reproducibility in the minimum ADC measurements (mean difference ± limits of agreement between two readers were 0.025 ± 0.25 × 10(-3) mm2 /s; ICC, 0.92) among the three ROI methods. For the solid tumor sample ROI, both minimum ADC and mean ADC measurements reproducibility were the worst, with limits of agreement up to ±0.50 × 10(-3) mm2 /s and ±0.32 × 10(-3) mm2 /s, respectively (ICCs, 0.41/0.58). Both the minimum and mean ADCs demonstrated significant differences among the three ROI methods (both P < 0.001). The post-hoc analyses results showed no significant difference with regard to the mean ADCs between whole-volume and single-slice ROI methods (P = 0.14).
CONCLUSIONS: The ROI method had a considerable influence on both the minimum and mean ADC values and the interobserver variability in PDAC. The worst interobserver variability was observed for both the minimum and mean ADCs derived from small solid-sample ROI.