44 UK radiotherapy practice in volume delineation–data from the APPROACH trial (ISRCTN:1339049) radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) programme benchmark outlining case

Clicks: 14
ID: 326670
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #242 of 286 articles by views in journal of neuro-oncology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 286 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Interobserver variation in radiotherapy contouring can affect protocol compliance and the robustness of clinical trial outcomes. The APPROACH (Analysis of Proton vs Photon Radiotherapy in Oligodendroglioma and Assessments of Cognitive Health) trial protocol mandates delineation of target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), including the hippocampi and hypothalamus, to enable correlation of delivered dose with late toxicity. Here we assess centres’ previous experience in contouring OARs and performance in the benchmark outlining case. Methods The APPROACH radiotherapy quality assurance (RTQA) programme included a pre-accrual facility questionnaire (FQ) designed to document local radiotherapy practices and a benchmark outlining and planning case in accordance with the APPROACH Radiotherapy Guidance using 1 mm-slice dedicated planning MRI. Contours were compared against a gold standard generated by expert consensus. Interobserver variability was quantified using the Jaccard conformity-index (JCI), discordance- index (DI), geographical-miss-index (GMI), and mean distance to conformity (MDC) both volumetrically and slice-by-slice to assess regional variation. Results All centres returned FQs; variation in standard OAR contouring is demonstrated. 6/25 routinely contoured the hippocampus and one proton centre routinely contoured the hypothalamus. Benchmark contours were evaluated from 20 centres. Target volumes showed good conformity (GTV-FLAIR JCI 0.87, CTV 0.91). OARs demonstrate lower agreement, including right and left hippocampi (median JCI 0.62 and 0.59) and right and left hypothalamus (both 0.51). Overall, OAR JCI ranged from 0.91-0.18. Slice-by-slice analysis demonstrates variability was greatest at superior and inferior slice extents, with both under- and over-contouring observed. Conclusions The outlining benchmark case highlights significant interobserver variation exists in delineation of OARs, despite atlas-based guidance. Reasons for poor conformity identified from examination of the contours include misidentification of structures in areas of poor anatomical definition, and different local contouring practice.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204439140 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jennifer Golten, Emiliano Spezi, Anna Bruce, Daniel Egleston, Elizabeth Miles, James Powell, Louise Murray
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal journal of neuro-oncology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/neuonc/noag172.081
URL
https://academic.oup.com/neuro-oncology/article-pdf/28/Supplement_1/noag172.081/70805909/noag172.081.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.