Multi-observer contouring of male pelvic anatomy: Highly variable agreement across conventional and emerging structures of interest

Introduction: This study quantified inter-observer contouring variations for multiple male pelvic structures, many of which are of emerging relevance for prostate cancer radiotherapy progression and toxicity response studies. Methods: Five prostate cancer patient datasets (CT and T2-weighted MR) were distributed to 13 observers for contouring. CT structures contoured included the clinical target volume (CTV), seminal vesicles, rectum, colon, bowel bag, bladder and peri-rectal space (PRS). MR contours included CTV, trigone, membranous urethra, penile bulb, neurovascular bundle and multiple pelvic floor muscles. Contouring variations were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and multiple additional metrics. Results: Clinical target volume (CT and MR), bladder, rectum and PRS contours showed excellent inter-observer agreement (median ICC = 0.97; 0.99; 1.00; 0.95; 0.90, DSC = 0.83 ± 0.05; 0.88 ± 0.05; 0.93 ± 0.03; 0.81 ± 0.07; 0.80 ± 0.06, respectively). Seminal vesicle contours were more variable (ICC = 0.75, DSC = 0.73 ± 0.14), while colon and bowel bag contoured volumes were consistent (ICC = 0.97; 0.97), but displayed poor overlap (DSC = 0.58 ± 0.22; 0.67 ± 0.21). Smaller MR structures showed significant inter-observer variations, with poor overlap for trigone, membranous urethra, penile bulb, and left and right neurovascular bundles (DSC = 0.44 ± 0.22; 0.41 ± 0.21; 0.66 ± 0.21; 0.16 ± 0.17; 0.15 ± 0.15). Pelvic floor muscles recorded moderate to strong inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.50–0.97), although large outlier variations were observed. Conclusions: Inter-observer contouring variation was significant for multiple pelvic structures contoured on MR

Are presentations of abstracts at EGPRN meetings followed by publication?

Background: Research presented at scientific meetings is inaccessible to clinicians, unless the findings are subsequently published in a journal. Aims: To assess the publication rate of studies presented at 10 European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) meetings between 1999 and 2006. Methods: Survey by e-mail or postal questionnaire among all presenters. Results: Information was obtained on 251 presentations (response rate 60%). In total, 113 out of these 251 (45%) presentations had been published. However, only 60% of the research findings were published in English Medline-listed journals, whereas 20% were not Medline-listed. The most frequently cited reason for non-publication was that the paper had not been submitted yet at time of follow up (103 responses). The main reason for non-submission was that the research presented had not been completed yet. Conclusion: Presentations at EGPRN meetings commonly concern research ideas or ongoing research. In this light, the ratio of published work to presented work compares well with the corresponding ratios found for international meetings in other specialist fields. This survey was also meant as an audit of the EGPRN meetings and gives better insight in needs for future strategy