Maintaining prostate contouring consistency following an educational intervention.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess variation in prostate contouring 12 months following a structured interactive educational intervention (EI) and to test the hypothesis that EIs positively impact on prostate contouring accuracy and consistency long term. METHODS: A common set of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data sets were used to assess prostate contouring consistency before, immediately after and 12 months following an EI. No further EIs were provided after the initial EI. Contour variation was assessed using the volume ratio (VR), defined as the ratio of the encompassing volume to common volume. RESULTS: Of the original five radiation oncologists (ROs) at baseline, four completed all assessments, and one was unavailable at 12 months follow-up. At 12 months, mean VR deteriorated by 3.2% on CT and 1.9% on MRI compared to immediately post EI. Overall, compared to the pre-EI baseline VR, an improvement of 11.4% and 10.8% was demonstrated on CT and MRI, respectively. CONCLUSION: Good retention of applied knowledge 12 months following an EI on prostate contouring was demonstrated. This study advocates for EIs to be included as part of continuing medical education to reduce contour variation among ROs and improve knowledge retention long term.

Prostate contouring variation: can it be fixed?

PURPOSE: To assess whether an education program on CT and MRI prostate anatomy would reduce inter- and intraobserver prostate contouring variation among experienced radiation oncologists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three patient CT and MRI datasets were selected. Five radiation oncologists contoured the prostate for each patient on CT first, then MRI, and again between 2 and 4 weeks later. Three education sessions were then conducted. The same contouring process was then repeated with the same datasets and oncologists. The observer variation was assessed according to changes in the ratio of the encompassing volume to intersecting volume (volume ratio [VR]), across sets of target volumes. RESULTS: For interobserver variation, there was a 15% reduction in mean VR with CT, from 2.74 to 2.33, and a 40% reduction in mean VR with MRI, from 2.38 to 1.41 after education. A similar trend was found for intraobserver variation, with a mean VR reduction for CT and MRI of 9% (from 1.51 to 1.38) and 16% (from 1.37 to 1.15), respectively. CONCLUSION: A well-structured education program has reduced both inter- and intraobserver prostate contouring variations. The impact was greater on MRI than on CT. With the ongoing incorporation of new technologies into routine practice, education programs for target contouring should be incorporated as part of the continuing medical education of radiation oncologists.