MRI- versus CT-based volume delineation of lumpectomy cavity in supine position in breast-conserving therapy: an exploratory study.

PURPOSE To examine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for lumpectomy cavity (LC) volume delineation in supine radiotherapy treatment position and to assess the interobserver variability. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 15 breast cancer patients underwent a planning CT and directly afterward MRI in supine radiotherapy treatment position. Then, 4 observers (2 radiation oncologists and 2 radiologists) delineated the LC on the CT and MRI scans and assessed the cavity visualization score (CVS). The CVS, LC volume, conformity index (CI), mean shift of the center of mass (COM), with the standard deviation, were quantified for both CT and MRI. RESULTS The CVS showed that MRI and CT provide about equal optimal visibility of the LC. If the CVS was high, magnetic resonance imaging provided more detail of the interfaces of the LC seroma with the unaffected GBT. MRI also pictured in more detail the interfaces of axillary seromas (if present) with their surroundings and their relationship to the LC. Three observers delineated smaller, and one observer larger, LC volumes comparing the MRI- and CT-derived delineations. The mean ± standard deviation CI was 32% ± 25% for MRI and 52% ± 21% for CT. The mean ± standard deviation COM shift was 11 ± 10 mm (range 1-36) for MRI and 4 ± 3 mm (range 1-10) for CT. CONCLUSIONS MRI does not add additional information to CT in cases in which the CVS is assessed as low. The conformity (CI) is lower for MRI than for CT, especially at a low CVS owing to greater COM shifts for MRI, probably caused by inadequate visibility of the surgical clips on magnetic resonance (MR) images. The COM shifts seriously dictate a decline in the CI more than the variability of the LC volumes does. In cases in which MRI provides additional information, MRI must be combined with the CT/surgical clip data.

[1]  E. Strom,et al.  Breast IMRT: new tools leading to new vision. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  I. Barillot,et al.  Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Eric Berthelet,et al.  Target volume delineation for partial breast radiotherapy planning: clinical characteristics associated with low interobserver concordance. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Laurence Collette,et al.  Impact of a Higher Radiation Dose on Local Control and Survival in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Early Breast Cancer: 10-Year Results of the Randomized Boost Versus No Boost EORTC 22881-10882 Trial , 2007 .

[5]  M. Halliwell,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging appearances in the postoperative breast: the clinical target volume-tumor and its relationship to the chest wall. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  Marjan Admiraal,et al.  Significance of breast boost volume changes during radiotherapy in relation to current clinical interobserver variations. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[7]  J. Bellon,et al.  Variability among breast radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical lumpectomy cavity. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  E. Kouwenhoven,et al.  Measuring the similarity of target volume delineations independent of the number of observers , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  M. Halliwell,et al.  True local recurrence rate in the conserved breast after magnetic resonance imaging-targeted radiotherapy. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  C. Raaijmakers,et al.  Interobserver variability of clinical target volume delineation of glandular breast tissue and of boost volume in tangential breast irradiation. , 2005, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  A. Hart,et al.  Impact of pathological characteristics on local relapse after breast-conserving therapy: a subgroup analysis of the EORTC boost versus no boost trial. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Breast electron boost planning: comparison of CT and US. , 2001, Radiology.

[13]  Anil Sethi,et al.  Breast boost: Are we missing the target? , 2003, Cancer.

[14]  P. Evans,et al.  Tumor bed delineation for partial breast and breast boost radiotherapy planned in the prone position: what does MRI add to X-ray CT localization of titanium clips placed in the excision cavity wall? , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.