Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. May 15, 2022; 14(5): 1027-1036
Published online May 15, 2022. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i5.1027
Published online May 15, 2022. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i5.1027
Table 1 Definitions and formulas of the indices used for comparison
Indices | Definition | Formula | |
Indices for geometric comparison analysis | Dice similarity coefficient index | Intersection of Vstu and Vref divided by their average | 2 (Vstu ∩ Vref)/(Vstu + Vref) |
Inclusiveness index | Intersection of Vstu and Vref divided by Vstu | (Vref ∩ Vstu)/Vstu | |
Concordance index | Intersection of Vstu and Vref divided by their union | (Vref ∩ Vstu)/(Vref ∪ Vstu) | |
Relative volume difference | Difference between Vstu and Vref divided by Vref and multiplied by 100 | (Vstu-Vref)/Vref × 100 | |
Indices for interobserver variation | Maximum volume ratio | Ratio of the maximum volume to minimum volume contoured by the participants | Vmax/Vmin |
Coefficient of variation | Standard deviation of the volumes contoured by the participants multiplied by 100 and divided by the mean value | SD × 100/mean |
Table 2 Quantitative analysis of target volume parameters
Indices | Before the education program | After the education program | t/Z value | P value |
Volume (cm3) | 809.82 ± 141.17 (624.69-1112.79) | 705.21 ± 100.53 (603.97-949.53) | -3.180 | 0.001 |
Length (cm) | 18.19 ± 1.01 (16.50-20.00) | 17.77 ± 0.60 (17.00-19.00) | 1.442 | 0.175 |
DSC | 0.78 ± 0.06 (0.68-0.87) | 0.84 ± 0.04 (0.71-0.88) | -2.621 | 0.009 |
IncI | 0.69 ± 0.10 (0.57-0.83) | 0.79 ± 0.08 (0.58-0.87) | -3.926 | 0.002 |
CI | 0.65 ± 0.08 (0.52-0.77) | 0.73 ± 0.06 (0.56-0.78) | -2.551 | 0.011 |
ΔV (%) | 30.79 ± 10.65 (17.33-47.65) | 21.43 ± 7.80 (12.93-41.70) | 3.926 | 0.002 |
Table 3 Quantitative analysis of interobserver variation
Vmax (cm3) | Vmin (cm3) | Mean (cm3) | SD (cm3) | MVR | CV | |
Before the education program | 1112.79 | 624.69 | 809.82 | 141.17 | 1.78 | 17.43 |
After the education program | 949.53 | 603.97 | 705.21 | 100.53 | 1.57 | 14.26 |
Decrease ratio | 14.67% | 3.32% | 12.92% | 28.79% | 11.80% | 18.19% |
Table 4 Qualitative analysis of target volume variations
Parameters | Before the education program | After the education program | P value | ||
Yes | No | Yes | No | ||
CTV start from the bifurcation of the common iliac artery | 8 (61.54%) | 5 (38.46%) | 12 (92.31%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0.16 |
Delineate external iliac area | 8 (61.54%) | 5 (38.46%) | 1 (7.69%) | 12 (92.31%) | 0.01 |
Delineate inguinal area | 0 (0%) | 13 (100%) | 0 (0.00%) | 13 (100%) | NA |
Delineate ischiorectal fossa | 7 (53.85%) | 6 (46.15%) | 1 (7.69%) | 12 (92.31%) | 0.03 |
- Citation: Zhang YZ, Zhu XG, Song MX, Yao KN, Li S, Geng JH, Wang HZ, Li YH, Cai Y, Wang WH. Improving the accuracy and consistency of clinical target volume delineation for rectal cancer by an education program. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2022; 14(5): 1027-1036
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v14/i5/1027.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v14.i5.1027