Purpose: To understand the reasons for differences in the delineation of target volumes between physicians.
Material and methods: 18 Swiss radiooncology centers were invited to delineate volumes for one prostate and one head-and-neck case. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to evaluate the differences in the volume definition (GTV [gross tumor volume], CTV [clinical target volume], PTV [planning target volume]), the various estimated margins, and the nodes at risk. Coherence between drawn and stated margins by centers was calculated. The questionnaire also included a nonspecific series of questions regarding planning methods in each institution.
Results: Fairly large differences in the drawn volumes were seen between the centers in both cases and also in the definition of volumes. Correlation between drawn and stated margins was fair in the prostate case and poor in the head-and-neck case. The questionnaire revealed important differences in the planning methods between centers.
Conclusion: These large differences could be explained by (1) a variable knowledge/interpretation of ICRU definitions, (2) variable interpretations of the potential microscopic extent, (3) difficulties in GTV identification, (4) differences in the concept, and (5) incoherence between theory (i.e., stated margins) and practice (i.e., drawn margins).