The dosimetric impact of axillary nodes contouring variability in breast cancer radiotherapy: An AIRO multi-institutional study.
Breast cancer
Dosimetry
Inter-observer variability
Nodal contouring
Radiotherapy
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
20
05
2021
revised:
03
01
2022
accepted:
04
01
2022
pubmed:
17
1
2022
medline:
8
4
2022
entrez:
16
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To quantify the dosimetric impact of contouring variability of axillary lymph nodes (L2, L3, L4) in breast cancer (BC) locoregional radiotherapy (RT). 18 RT centres were asked to plan a locoregional treatment on their own planning target volume (single centre, SC-PTV) which was created by applying their institutional margins to the clinical target volume of the axillary nodes of three BC patients (P1, P2, P3) previously delineated (SC-CTV). The gold standard CTVs (GS-CTVs) of P1, P2 and P3 were developed by BC experts' consensus and validated with STAPLE algorithm. For each participating centre, the GS-PTV of each patient was created by applying the same margins as those used for the SC-CTV to SC-PTV expansion and replaced the SC-PTV in the treatment plan. Datasets were imported into MIM v6.1.7 [MIM Software Inc.], where dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were extracted and differences were analysed. 17/18 centres used intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). The CTV to PTV margins ranged from 0 to 10 mm (median 5 mm). No correlation was observed between GS-CTV coverage by 95% isodose and GS-PTV margins width. Doses delivered to 98% (D98) and 95% (D95) of GS-CTVs were significantly lower than those delivered to the SC-CTVs. No significant difference between SC-CTV and GS-CTV was observed in maximum dose (D2), always under 110%. Mean dose ≥99% of the SC-CTVs and GS-CTVs was satisfied in 84% and 50%, respectively. In less than one half of plans, GS-CTV V95% was above 90%. Breaking down the GS-CTV into the three nodal levels (L2, L3 and L4), L4 had the lowest probability to be covered by the 95% isodose. Overall, GS-CTV resulted worse coverage, especially for L4. IMRT was largely used and CTV-to-PTV margins did not compensate for contouring issues. The results highlighted the need for delineation training and standardization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35033602
pii: S0167-8140(22)00008-1
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.01.004
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113-120Investigateurs
Cristina Leonardi
(C)
Matteo Pepa
(M)
Simone Giovanni Gugliandolo
(SG)
Rosa Luraschi
(R)
Sabrina Vigorito
(S)
Anna Morra
(A)
Samantha Dicuonzo
(S)
Marianna Alessandra Gerardi
(MA)
Lars Johannes Isaksson
(LJ)
Maria Alessia Zerella
(MA)
Maria Rosa La Porta
(M)
Domenico Cante
(D)
Edoardo Petrucci
(E)
Lorenza Marino
(L)
Giuseppina Borzì
(G)
Edy Ippolito
(E)
Maristella Marrocco
(M)
Alessandra Huscher
(A)
Matteo Chieregato
(M)
Angela Argenone
(A)
Luciano Iadanza
(L)
Fiorenza De Rose
(F)
Francesca Lobefalo
(F)
Francesca Cucciarelli
(F)
Marco Valenti
(M)
Maria Carmen De Santis
(M)
Anna Cavallo
(A)
Francesca Rossi
(F)
Serenella Russo
(S)
Agnese Prisco
(A)
Marika Guernieri
(M)
Roberta Guarnaccia
(R)
Tiziana Malatesta
(T)
Ilaria Meaglia
(I)
Marco Liotta
(M)
Paola Tabarelli de Fatis
(P)
Isabella Palumbo
(I)
Marta Marcantonini
(M)
Sarah Pia Colangione
(S)
Emilio Mezzenga
(E)
Sara Falivene
(S)
Maria Mormile
(M)
Vincenzo Ravo
(V)
Cecilia Arrichiello
(C)
Alessandra Fozza
(A)
Maria Paola Barbero
(MP)
Giovanni Battista Ivaldi
(GB)
Gianpiero Catalano
(G)
Cristiana Vidali
(C)
Cynthia Aristei
(C)
Caterina Giannittb
(C)
Delia Ciardo
(D)
Antonella Ciabattoni
(A)
Icro Meattini
(I)
Roberto Orecchia
(R)
Federica Cattani
(F)
Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
(BA)
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement MCL and FC received honorarium fee from Accuray Inc. outside the current article. BAJF reports personal fees from Janssen, Ferring, Bayer, Roche, Astellas, Elekta, Carl Zeiss, Ipsen, IBA, grants and personal fees from Accuray, grants from AIRC and FIEO-CCM & FUV, all outside the current paper. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interest.