...
首页> 外文期刊>Strahlentherapie und Onkologie >Multicenter evaluation of different target volume delineation concepts in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma: A case study [Multicenterevaluierung unterschiedlicher Zielvolumenkonzepte für p?diatrische Hodgkin-Erkrankungen: Eine Fallstudie]
【24h】

Multicenter evaluation of different target volume delineation concepts in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma: A case study [Multicenterevaluierung unterschiedlicher Zielvolumenkonzepte für p?diatrische Hodgkin-Erkrankungen: Eine Fallstudie]

机译:小儿霍奇金淋巴瘤中不同靶标量概念的多中心评估:案例研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background and purpose: In pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma (PHL) improvements in imaging and multiagent chemotherapy have allowed for a reduction in target volume. The involved-node (IN) concept is being tested in several treatment regimens for adult Hodgkin's lymphoma. So far there is no consensus on the definition of the IN. To improve the reproducibility of the IN, we tested a new involved-node-level (INL) concept, using defined anatomical boundaries as basis for target delineation. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of IN and INL concepts for PHL in terms of interobserver variability. Patients and methods: The INL concept was defined for the neck and mediastinum by the PHL Radiotherapy Group based on accepted concepts for solid tumors. Seven radiation oncologists from six European centers contoured neck and mediastinal clinical target volumes (CTVs) of 2 patients according to the IN and the new INL concepts. The median CTVs, coefficient of variation (COV), and general conformity index (CI) were assessed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for reliability of delineations was calculated. Results: All observers agreed that INL is a feasible and practicable delineation concept resulting in stronger interobserver concordance than the IN (mediastinum CI INL = 0.39 vs. CI IN = 0.28, neck left CI INL = 0.33; CI IN = 0.18; neck right CI INL = 0.24, CI IN = 0.14). The COV showed less dispersion and the ICC indicated higher reliability of contouring for INL (ICC INL = 0.62, p 0.05) as for IN (ICC IN = 0.40, p 0.05). Conclusion: INL is a practical and feasible alternative to IN resulting in more homogeneous target delineation, and it should be therefore considered as a future target volume concept in PHL.
机译:背景与目的:在小儿霍奇金淋巴瘤(PHL)中,影像学和多药化疗的改善已使目标体积减少。涉及结节(IN)的概念正在针对成人霍奇金淋巴瘤的几种治疗方案中进行测试。到目前为止,关于IN的定义尚无共识。为了提高IN的可重复性,我们使用定义的解剖边界作为目标描绘的基础,测试了新的涉及节点级(INL)概念。目的是根据观察者间的差异性评估IN和INL概念用于PHL的可行性。患者和方法:PHL放射治疗小组根据对实体瘤的公认概念为颈部和纵隔定义了INL概念。来自欧洲六个中心的七位放射肿瘤学家根据IN和新的INL概念,对2位患者的颈部和纵隔临床目标体积(CTV)进行了轮廓绘制。评估了CTV的中位数,变异系数(COV)和总体合格指数(CI)。计算了用于描述可靠性的类内相关系数(ICC)。结果:所有观察者都认为INL是一种可行且可行的划界概念,其观察者之间的一致性比IN更强(纵隔CI INL = 0.39 vs. CI IN = 0.28,左颈CI INL = 0.33; CI IN = 0.18;颈右CI INL = 0.24,CI IN = 0.14)。与IN(ICC IN = 0.40,p <0.05)相比,INV(ICC INL = 0.62,p <0.05)的COV色散较小,ICC表示轮廓的可靠性更高。结论:INL是IN的一种实际可行的替代方法,可以使目标轮廓更加均匀,因此应将其视为PHL中的未来目标量概念。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号