Recommendations for stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine and non-spine bone metastases. A GETUG (French society of urological radiation oncolgists) consensus using a national two-round modified Delphi survey.
Metastasis-directed
Non-spine bone metastasis
Oligometastatic
Spine bone metastasis
Stereotactic radiation therapy
Stereotaxy
Journal
Clinical and translational radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6308
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101713416
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
26
07
2022
accepted:
06
08
2022
entrez:
2
9
2022
pubmed:
3
9
2022
medline:
3
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The relevance of metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) remains to be demonstrated through phase III trials. Multiple SBRT procedures have been published potentially resulting in a disparity of practices. Therefore, the french society of urological radiation oncolgists (GETUG) recognized the need for joint expert consensus guidelines for metastasis-directed SBRT in order to standardize practice in trials carried out by the group. After a comprehensive literature review, 97 recommendation statements were created regarding planning and delivery of spine bone (SBM) and non-spine bone metastases (NSBM) SBRT. These statements were then submitted to a national online two-round modified Delphi survey among main GETUG investigators. Consensus was achieved if a statement received ≥ 75 % agreements, a trend to consensus being defined as 65-74 % agreements. Any statement without consensus at round one was re-submitted in round two. Twenty-one out of 29 (72.4%) surveyed experts responded to both rounds. Seventy-five statements achieved consensus at round one leaving 22 statements needing a revote of which 16 achieved consensus and 5 a trend to consensus. The final rate of consensus was 91/97 (93.8%). Statements with no consensus concerned patient selection (3/19), dose and fractionation (1/11), prescription and dose objectives (1/9) and organs at risk delineation (1/15). The voting resulted in the writing of step-by-step consensus guidelines. Consensus guidelines for SBM and NSBM SBRT were agreed upon using a validated modified Delphi approach. These guidelines will be used as per-protocole recommendations in ongoing and further GETUG clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
Background and purpose
UNASSIGNED
The relevance of metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) remains to be demonstrated through phase III trials. Multiple SBRT procedures have been published potentially resulting in a disparity of practices. Therefore, the french society of urological radiation oncolgists (GETUG) recognized the need for joint expert consensus guidelines for metastasis-directed SBRT in order to standardize practice in trials carried out by the group.
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
After a comprehensive literature review, 97 recommendation statements were created regarding planning and delivery of spine bone (SBM) and non-spine bone metastases (NSBM) SBRT. These statements were then submitted to a national online two-round modified Delphi survey among main GETUG investigators. Consensus was achieved if a statement received ≥ 75 % agreements, a trend to consensus being defined as 65-74 % agreements. Any statement without consensus at round one was re-submitted in round two.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Twenty-one out of 29 (72.4%) surveyed experts responded to both rounds. Seventy-five statements achieved consensus at round one leaving 22 statements needing a revote of which 16 achieved consensus and 5 a trend to consensus. The final rate of consensus was 91/97 (93.8%). Statements with no consensus concerned patient selection (3/19), dose and fractionation (1/11), prescription and dose objectives (1/9) and organs at risk delineation (1/15). The voting resulted in the writing of step-by-step consensus guidelines.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Consensus guidelines for SBM and NSBM SBRT were agreed upon using a validated modified Delphi approach. These guidelines will be used as per-protocole recommendations in ongoing and further GETUG clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36052019
doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.006
pii: S2405-6308(22)00068-4
pmc: PMC9424259
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
33-40Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Aug;173:215-222
pubmed: 35667571
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020 Nov - Dec;10(6):e452-e460
pubmed: 32171852
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):e597-605
pubmed: 22608954
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jan - Feb;10(1):e45-e49
pubmed: 31446148
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul 15;71(4):1261-71
pubmed: 18485614
JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 1;6(5):650-659
pubmed: 32215577
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jul 1;110(3):672-679
pubmed: 33422612
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jul 1;110(3):680-681
pubmed: 34089675
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Apr;145:21-29
pubmed: 31874346
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021 May 26;6(5):100692
pubmed: 34646963
BMC Cancer. 2019 Aug 19;19(1):816
pubmed: 31426760
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):1016-1026
pubmed: 26025777
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;38(25):2830-2838
pubmed: 32484754
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jul;22(7):901-903
pubmed: 34126045
Front Oncol. 2020 Aug 07;10:1165
pubmed: 32850333
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 10;36(5):446-453
pubmed: 29240541
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 May 1;110(1):112-123
pubmed: 33516580
Neurosurgery. 2007 Feb;60(2 Suppl 1):ONS147-56; discussion ONS156
pubmed: 17297377
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Mar 16;27:19-28
pubmed: 34337513
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jan 1;97(1):64-74
pubmed: 27843035
Ann ICRP. 2009 Aug;39(4):1-86
pubmed: 20478472
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov;16(11):666-667
pubmed: 31541199
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun;8(6):378-82
pubmed: 21423255
Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6Part16):3799
pubmed: 28517177
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jul;22(7):1023-1033
pubmed: 34126044
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Feb;98:147-58
pubmed: 26597017
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2020 Apr;31(2):191-200
pubmed: 32147010
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 May 1;110(1):124-136
pubmed: 31606528
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Sep;2(5):515-523
pubmed: 31302061
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 May 1;98(1):91-100
pubmed: 28587057
Lancet. 2019 May 18;393(10185):2051-2058
pubmed: 30982687
Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
pubmed: 20879569
Radiat Oncol. 2019 Dec 4;14(1):220
pubmed: 31801549
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 May 1;110(1):21-34
pubmed: 30836165
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Feb;2(1):79-87
pubmed: 30929848
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Jul;148:157-166
pubmed: 32388150
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30(25):3136-40
pubmed: 22778311
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):e18-e28
pubmed: 31908301