Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer.
Anal cancer
Contouring guidelines
Dose distribution
Inguinal lymph nodes
Organs at risk
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
01
12
2019
accepted:
16
01
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
22
10
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using different CTV definitions. Twelve patients with a primary diagnosis of anal cancer, who were treated with primary chemoradiation (CRT), were selected. We generated four guideline-specific CTVs and subsequently planned target volumes (PTVs) on the planning CT scan of each patient. An IMRT plan for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was set up for each PTV. Dose parameters of the planned target volume (PTV) and OARs were evaluated and compared, too. The mean volume of the four PTVs ranged from 2138 cc to 2433 cc. The target volumes contoured by the authors based on the recommendations of each group were similar in the pelvis, while they differed significantly in the inguinal region. There were no significant differences between the four target volumes with regard to the dose parameters of the cranially located OARs. Conversely, some dose parameters concerning the genitals and the skin varied significantly among the different guidelines. The four contouring guidelines differ significantly concerning the inguinal region. In order to avoid inguinal recurrence and to protect relevant OARs, further investigations are needed to generate uniform standards for definition of the elective clinical target volume in the inguinal region.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using different CTV definitions.
METHODS
METHODS
Twelve patients with a primary diagnosis of anal cancer, who were treated with primary chemoradiation (CRT), were selected. We generated four guideline-specific CTVs and subsequently planned target volumes (PTVs) on the planning CT scan of each patient. An IMRT plan for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was set up for each PTV. Dose parameters of the planned target volume (PTV) and OARs were evaluated and compared, too.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean volume of the four PTVs ranged from 2138 cc to 2433 cc. The target volumes contoured by the authors based on the recommendations of each group were similar in the pelvis, while they differed significantly in the inguinal region. There were no significant differences between the four target volumes with regard to the dose parameters of the cranially located OARs. Conversely, some dose parameters concerning the genitals and the skin varied significantly among the different guidelines.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The four contouring guidelines differ significantly concerning the inguinal region. In order to avoid inguinal recurrence and to protect relevant OARs, further investigations are needed to generate uniform standards for definition of the elective clinical target volume in the inguinal region.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32016496
doi: 10.1007/s00066-020-01587-y
pii: 10.1007/s00066-020-01587-y
pmc: PMC7089901
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
368-375Références
Br J Radiol. 2015 Jul;88(1051):20150032
pubmed: 25955229
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 May 1;86(1):27-33
pubmed: 23154075
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jul 1;83(3):e353-62
pubmed: 22483697
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):1455-62
pubmed: 22401917
Cancer. 2001 Jul 1;92(1):77-84
pubmed: 11443612
Acta Oncol. 2018 Jun;57(6):825-830
pubmed: 29297232
JAMA. 2008 Apr 23;299(16):1914-21
pubmed: 18430910
Oncology. 2013;85(1):1-7
pubmed: 23736101
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Jul;16(7):852-871
pubmed: 30006428
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Nov;93(2):298-301
pubmed: 19717198
Br J Surg. 1994 Apr;81(4):500-8
pubmed: 8205420
BMC Cancer. 2019 Jul 29;19(1):742
pubmed: 31357959
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017 Apr 29;2(3):281-287
pubmed: 29114593
Am J Clin Oncol. 2014 Oct;37(5):461-6
pubmed: 23466576
Am J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb;39(1):8-12
pubmed: 24401669
Cancer. 1993 Sep 15;72(6):2058-65
pubmed: 8364884
Lancet Oncol. 2013 May;14(6):516-24
pubmed: 23578724
Acta Oncol. 2016 Jun;55(6):760-6
pubmed: 26878244
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015 Oct;19(5):479-85
pubmed: 25911268
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jul 1;74(3):824-30
pubmed: 19117696
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jul 10;33(20):2231-8
pubmed: 25667281
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 May-Jun;5(3):e113-8
pubmed: 25424587
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S10-9
pubmed: 20171502
Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 Apr;52(4):624-31
pubmed: 19404066