Purpose Variation in target volume delineation represents a significant hurdle in clinical trials involving conformal radiotherapy. We sought to determine the impact of a consensus guideline-based visual atlas on contouring of target volumes. Methods A representative case and target volume delineation instructions derived from a proposed rectal cancer clinical trial involving conformal radiotherapy were contoured (Scan1) by 14 physician observers and a reference expert. Gross tumor volume (GTV), and 2 clinical target volumes (CTVA, comprising internal iliac, pre-sacral, and peri-rectal nodes, and CTVB, external iliac nodes) were contoured. Observers were randomly assigned to receipt (Group_A) /non-receipt (Group_B) of a consensus guideline and atlas for anorectal cancers, then instructed to re-contour the same case/images (Scan2). Observer variation was analyzed volumetrically using conformation number (CN, where CN=1 equals a total agreement). Results In 14 evaluable contour sets (1 expert, 7 Group_A, 6 Group_B), there was greater agreement for GTV (mean CN 0.75) than CTVs (mean CN 0.46–0.65). Atlas exposure for Group_A led to a significant increased inter-observer agreement for CTVA (mean initial CN 0.68, post-atlas 0.76; p=0.03), as well as increased agreement with the expert reference (initial mean CN 0.58, 0.69 post-atlas; p=0.02). For GTV and CTVB, neither inter-observer nor expert agreement was altered after atlas exposure. Conclusion Consensus guideline atlas implementation resulted in a detectable difference in inter-observer agreement and greater approximation of expert volumes for CTVA, but not GTV or CTVB, in the specified case. Visual atlas inclusion should be considered as a feature in future clinical trials incorporating conformal radiotherapy.

The purpose of this study was the prospective comparison of objective and subjective effects of target volume region of interest (ROI) delineation using mousekeyboard and pen-tablet user input devices (UIDs). The study was designed as a prospective test/retest sequence, with Wilcoxon signed rank test for matchedpair comparison. Twenty-one physician-observers contoured target volume ROIs on four standardized cases (representative of brain, prostate, lung, and head and neck malignancies) twice: once using QWERTY keyboard/scroll-wheel mouse UID and once with pen-tablet UID (DTX2100, Wacom Technology Corporation, Vancouver, WA, USA). Active task time, ROI manipulation task data, and subjective survey data were collected. One hundred twenty-nine target volume ROI sets were collected, with 62 paired pen-tablet/mouse-keyboard sessions. Active contouring time was reduced using the pen-tablet UID, with mean ± SD active contouring time of 26 ±23 min, compared with 32 ± 25 with the mouse (p ≤ 0.01). Subjective estimation of time spent was also reduced from 31 ±26 with mouse to 27 ± 22 min with the pen (p = 0.02). Task analysis showed ROI correction task reduction (p = 0.045) and decreased panning and scrolling tasks (p < 0.01) with the pen-tablet; drawing, window/ level changes, and zoom commands were unchanged (p = n.s.) Volumetric analysis demonstrated no detectable differences in ROI volume nor intra-or inter-observer volumetric coverage. Fifty-two of 62 (84%) users preferred the tablet for each contouring task; 5 of 62 (8%) denoted no preference, and 5 of 62 (8%) chose the mouse interface. The pen-tablet UID reduced active contouring time and reduced correction of ROIs, without substantially altering ROI volume/coverage.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract