Interobserver variability in target volume delineation of hepatocellular carcinoma : An analysis of the working group "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).

BACKGROUND: Definition of gross tumor volume (GTV) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires dedicated imaging in multiple contrast medium phases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement (IOA) in gross tumor delineation of HCC in a multicenter panel. METHODS: The analysis was performed within the "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" working group of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The GTVs of three anonymized HCC cases were delineated by 16 physicians from nine centers using multiphasic CT scans. In the first case the tumor was well defined. The second patient had multifocal HCC (one conglomerate and one peripheral tumor) and was previously treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The peripheral lesion was adjacent to the previous TACE site. The last patient had an extensive HCC with a portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and an inhomogeneous liver parenchyma due to cirrhosis. The IOA was evaluated according to Landis and Koch. RESULTS: The IOA for the first case was excellent (kappa: 0.85); for the second case moderate (kappa: 0.48) for the peripheral tumor and substantial (kappa: 0.73) for the conglomerate. In the case of the peripheral tumor the inconsistency is most likely explained by the necrotic tumor cavity after TACE caudal to the viable tumor. In the last case the IOA was fair, with a kappa of 0.34, with significant heterogeneity concerning the borders of the tumor and the PVT. CONCLUSION: The IOA was very good among the cases were the tumor was well defined. In complex cases, where the tumor did not show the typical characteristics, or in cases with Lipiodol (Guerbet, Paris, France) deposits, IOA agreement was compromised.

Gene expression profiling in seminoma and nonseminoma.

PURPOSE: Gene expression profiles of seminoma were compared with nonseminoma to get insights into tumorigenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven testicular tumor biopsies (five pure seminoma, six nonseminoma; pT1N0M0 to pT2N2M1) and biopsies from unaffected sites were analyzed once per patient using a macroarray (1,176 genes). On the same patients, six genes were validated using real-time quantitative (RTQ) polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Additionally, in a separate cohort of 19 patients, 24 genes selected from the macroarray were measured using RTQ-PCR. RESULTS: (1) The agreement in gene expression was 94% between the two methods and two different patient cohorts. (2) Two features in gene expression were independent of the tumor entity: Most changes of gene expression occurred in five functional groups like "cell cycle" and "apoptosis." Genes within these groups were almost similarly (> 80%) up- or downregulated. (3) Nonseminoma were characterized by downregulated genes (75%), but in seminoma, upregulated genes (64%) prevailed. Furthermore, 64.4% of those genes that were differentially expressed in both tumor entities were usually upregulated in seminoma but downregulated in nonseminoma. A reverse pattern was found in 24.4% of such genes. Eleven percent of these genes showed a similar up- or downregulation in gene expression in both tumor entities. CONCLUSION: Seminoma in this preliminary study can be differentiated from nonseminoma due to almost opposing gene expression profiles (89% of the significantly differentially expressed genes) and are in line with the histological discrimination of both tumor entities. Underlying mechanisms and implications regarding the origin and tumor progression of both entities are discussed.