Quantifying interobserver variation in target definition in palliative radiotherapy

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the degree of interobserver and intraobserver variability in target and field definition when using three-dimensional (3D) volume- vs. two-dimensional (2D) field-based planning.

Methods and materials: Standardized case scenario and diagnostic imaging for 9 palliative cases (3 bone metastases, 3 palliative lung cancer, and 3 abdominal pelvis soft-tissue disease) were presented to 5 study radiation oncologists. After a decision on what the intended anatomic target should be, observers created two sets of treatment fields, first using a 2D field-based and then a 3D volume-based planning approach. Percent overlap, under-coverage, and over-coverage were used to describe interobserver and intraobserver variations in target definition.

Results: The degree of interobserver variation for 2D and 3D planning was similar with a degree of overlap of 76% (range, 56%-85%) and 74% (range, 55%-88%), respectively. When comparing the treatment fields defined by the same observer using the two different planning methods, the mean degree of overlap was 78%; over-coverage, 22%; and under-coverage, 41%. There was statistically significantly more under-coverage when field-based planning was used for bone metastases (33%) vs. other anatomic sites (16%) (p = 0.02). In other words, 2D planning is more likely to result in geographic misses in bone metastases compared with other areas.

Conclusions: In palliative radiotherapy clinically significant interobserver and intraobserver variation existed when using both field- and volume-based planning approaches. Strategies that would reduce this variability deserve further investigation.