Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:34:39.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and initial evaluation of a novel 3D volumetric outlining system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2015

Pete Bridge ,
Andrew Fielding ,
Andrew Pullar  and
Pamela Rowntree
Pete Bridge*
Affiliation:
Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Andrew Fielding
Affiliation:
Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Andrew Pullar
Affiliation:
Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Pamela Rowntree
Affiliation:
Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
*
Correspondence to: Pete Bridge, Directorate of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside L693BX, UK. Tel: 44 794 424 4626. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

The novel three-dimensional (3D) radiotherapy interactive outlining tool allows volumes to be created from a handful of points within axial, sagittal and coronal planes. 3D volumetric visualisation allows users to directly manipulate the resulting volume using innovative-sculpting tools. This paper discusses the development and initial evaluation of the software ahead of formal clinical testing.

Materials and methods

User feedback was collated as part of the software development phase to ensure clinical suitability, define user training strategies and identify best practice. A loosely structured format was adopted with leading descriptive questions aiming to generate suggestions for improvements and initiate further discussion.

Results

The four participants reported great satisfaction and value in being able to use all three planes for outlining, although orientation in 3D was evidently a problem. All participants felt that the software was capable of producing acceptable outlines rapidly and that the multi-planar capability allowed for improved outlining of the prostate apex.

Findings

Mesh generation from a small number of points placed on a range of planes is a rapid and effective means of target delineation. Multi-slice volume sculpting and 3D orientation is challenging and may indicate a need for a paradigm shift in anatomy and computed tomography training.

Keywords

imagingprostatequalitative evaluationradiotherapy planningthree dimensional
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 38 - 44
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Voet, P W J, Dirkx, M L P, Teguh, D N, Hoogeman, M S, Levendag, P C, Heijmen, B J M. Does atlas-based autosegmentation of neck levels require subsequent manual contour editing to avoid risk of severe target underdosage? A dosimetric analysis. Radiother Oncol 2011; 98 (3): 373–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Thomas, S J, Vinall, A, Poynter, A, Routsis, D. A multicentre timing study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning and delivery. Clin Oncol 22 (8): 658–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Reed, V K, Woodward, W A, Zhang, Let al. Automatic segmentation of whole breast using atlas approach and deformable image registration. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73 (5): 1493–1500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Jefferies, S, Taylor, A, Reznek, R. Results of a national survey of radiotherapy planning and delivery in the UK in 2007. Clin Oncol 2009; 21 (3): 204–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Njeh, C F. Tumor delineation: the weakest link in the search for accuracy in radiotherapy. J Med Phys 2008; 33 (4): 136–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Allozi, R, Li, X A, White, Jet al. Tools for consensus analysis of experts’ contours for radiotherapy structure definitions. Radiother Oncol 2010; 97 (3): 572–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Weiss, E, Hess, C F. The impact of gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) definition on the total accuracy in radiotherapy: theoretical aspects and practical experiences. Strahlenther Onkol 2003; 179 (1): 21–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Zheng, Y, Sun, X, Wang, J, Zhang, L, Di, X, Xu, Y. FDG-PET/CT imaging for tumor staging and definition of tumor volumes in radiation treatment planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett 2014; 7 (4): 1015–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.van Herk, M, Duppen, J, Remeijer, P, Burnet, N, Swift, S, Khoo, V. The impact of delineation training on intraobserver variation in gross target volume delineation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75 (3): S25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Sandhu, G K, Dunscombe, P, Meyer, T, Pavamani, S, Khan, R. Inter- and intra-observer variability in prostate definition with tissue harmonic and brightness mode imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (1): e9–e16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Van de Velde, J, Vercauteren, T, De Gersem, Wet al. Reliability and accuracy assessment of radiation therapy oncology group-endorsed guidelines for brachial plexus contouring. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190 (7): 628–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Breen, S L, Publicover, J, De Silva, Set al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in GTV delineation on FDG-PET-CT images of head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68 (3): 763–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Khoo, E L H, Schick, K, Plank, A Wet al. Prostate contouring variation: can it be fixed? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (5): 1923–1929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Fiorino, C, Reni, M, Bolognesi, A, Cattaneo, G M, Calandrino, R. Intra- and inter-observer variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: implications for conformal treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 1998; 47 (3): 285–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Remeijer, P, Rasch, C, Lebesque, J V, Van Herk, M. A general methodology for three-dimensional analysis of variation in target volume delineation. Med Phys 1999; 26 (6): 931–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Chen, A, Niermann, K J, Deeley, M A, Dawant, B M. Evaluation of multiple-atlas-based strategies for segmentation of the thyroid gland in head and neck CT images for IMRT. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57 (1): 93–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.McBain, C A, Moore, C J, Green, M M Let al. Early clinical evaluation of a novel three-dimensional structure delineation software tool (SCULPTER) for radiotherapy treatment planning. Br J Radiol 2008; 81 (968): 643–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.David, C L, Williamson, K, Tilsley, D W O. A small scale, qualitative focus group to investigate the psychosocial support needs of teenage young adult cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in Wales. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2012; 16 (4): 375–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Bridge, P, Appleyard, R M, Ward, J W, Philips, R, Beavis, A W. The development and evaluation of a virtual radiotherapy treatment machine using an immersive visualisation environment. Comput Educ 2007; 49 (2): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar