Magnetic Resonance Imaging– Versus Computed Tomography–Based Target Volume Delineation of the Glandular Breast Tissue (Clinical Target Volume Breast) in Breast-Conserving Therapy: An Exploratory Study

Critical discussion of evaluation parameters for inter-observer variability in target definition for radiation therapy

“…), it represents the domain where harmonization in reporting is lacking [2,5,6,8,10,19,22,24,25,26,29,32,34,37,38,41,42,44,45,46,48,51,52,53]. When moving to 3D representation, metrics such as variation of the center of mass (COM) allow the evaluation of the volume displacement in space [3,10,25,37,46,47,52,53]. Reconstruction of surface points on the base of meshes and 3D vectors represent the differences on the surfaces of the structures and lead to the exact topographic identification and visualization of disagreements.…”

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography for Breast Target Volume Delineation in Prone and Supine Positions

“…Studies with a limited number of observers comparing WB CTV for MRI and CT have shown no difference in delineation variations [13], [14]. One study showed larger MRI volumes than CT [13], the other showed CT to be larger than volumes optimised on registered MRI/CT (initially delineated on CT) [14].…”

Different methods for target volume delineation of glandular breast tissue following breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: A comparative study

“…Further comparison indicated that the boundary defined by CTVpa was within that defined by CTVan, however, there was a large variation among patients; the most significant difference was at the cephalic boundary with a coefficient of variation up to 6.64, followed by the caudal and lateral boundaries with a coefficient of variation of 0.36, consistent with the values published in the literature. Giezen et al (21) found that the target volume based on the images of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was 4% larger than that defined by the images of the CT scan; a significant difference was found in the lateral and medial superior directions, with a 17% alteration in the target center toward the cephalic direction and a 3% alteration in the target center toward the dorsal direction. By contrast, Hurkmans et al (12) found that the target volume varied differently by each delineation, and a significant difference was found in the posterior of the breast, and the cephalic and medial boundaries, with a difference of 42, 28 and 24 mm, respectively; the difference was relatively smaller at the anterior, caudal and lateral boundaries, with values of 6, 15 and 8 mm, respectively.…”