The Reasons for Discrepancies in TargetVolume Delineation: A SASRO Study on Head-and-Neck and Prostate Cancers

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

Primary breast lymphoma: patient profile, outcome and prognostic factors. A multicentre rare cancer network study

Background: To asses the clinical profile, treatment outcome and prognostic factors in primary breast lymphoma (PBL). Methods: Between 1970 and 2000, 84 consecutive patients with PBL were treated in 20 institutions of the Rare Cancer Network. Forty-six patients had Ann Arbor stage IE, 33 stage IIE, 1 stage IIIE, 2 stage IVE and 2 an unknown stage. Twenty-one underwent a mastectomy, 39 conservative surgery and 23 biopsy; 51 received radiotherapy (RT) with (n = 37) or without (n = 14) chemotherapy. Median RT dose was 40 Gy (range 12-55 Gy). Results: Ten (12%) patients progressed locally and 43 (55%) had a systemic relapse. Central nervous system (CNS) was the site of relapse in 12 (14%) cases. The 5-yr overall survival, lymphoma-specific survival, disease-free survival and local control rates were 53%, 59%, 41% and 87% respectively. In the univariate analyses, favorable prognostic factors were early stage, conservative surgery, RT administration and combined modality treatment. Multivariate analysis showed that early stage and the use of RT were favorable prognostic factors. Conclusion: The outcome of PBL is fair. Local control is excellent with RT or combined modality treatment but systemic relapses, including that in the CNS, occurs frequentl

Primary breast lymphoma: Patient profile, outcome and prognostic factors. A multicentre Rare Cancer Network study

BACKGROUND: To asses the clinical profile, treatment outcome and prognostic factors in primary breast lymphoma (PBL). METHODS: Between 1970 and 2000, 84 consecutive patients with PBL were treated in 20 institutions of the Rare Cancer Network. Forty-six patients had Ann Arbor stage IE, 33 stage IIE, 1 stage IIIE, 2 stage IVE and 2 an unknown stage. Twenty-one underwent a mastectomy, 39 conservative surgery and 23 biopsy; 51 received radiotherapy (RT) with (n = 37) or without (n = 14) chemotherapy. Median RT dose was 40 Gy (range 12-55 Gy). RESULTS: Ten (12%) patients progressed locally and 43 (55%) had a systemic relapse. Central nervous system (CNS) was the site of relapse in 12 (14%) cases. The 5-yr overall survival, lymphoma-specific survival, disease-free survival and local control rates were 53%, 59%, 41% and 87% respectively. In the univariate analyses, favorable prognostic factors were early stage, conservative surgery, RT administration and combined modality treatment. Multivariate analysis showed that early stage and the use of RT were favorable prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: The outcome of PBL is fair. Local control is excellent with RT or combined modality treatment but systemic relapses, including that in the CNS, occurs frequently

A treatment planning comparison of contemporary photon-based radiation techniques for breast cancer

Background and purpose: Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) of the whole breast (WB) is still the standard treatment for early breast cancer. A variety of radiation techniques is currently available according to different delivery strategies. This study aims to provide a comparison of six treatment planning strategies commonly adopted for breast-conserving adjuvant RT and to use the Pareto concept in an attempt to assess the degree of plan optimization. Materials and methods: Two groups of six left- and five right-sided cases with different dose prescriptions were involved (22 patients in total). Field-in-Field (FiF), two and four Fields static-IMRT (sIMRT-2f and sIMRT-4f), Volumetric-Modulated-Arc-Therapy (VMAT), Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and Static-Angles Tomotherapy (TomoDirect™ – TD) were planned. Dose volume constraints were taken from the RTOG protocol 1005. Pareto fronts were built for a selected case to evaluate the reliability of the plan optimization process. Results: The best target dose coverage was observed for TD able to improve significantly (p < 0.01) the V95% in a range varying from 1.2% to 7.5% compared to other techniques. The V105% was significantly reduced up to 2% for HT (p < 0.05) although FiF and VMAT produced similar values. For the ipsilateral lung, V5Gy, V10Gy and Dmean were significantly lower than all other techniques (p < 0.02) for TD while the lowest value of V20Gy was observed for HT. The maximum dose to contralateral breast was significantly lowest for TD (p < 0.02) and for FiF (p < 0.05). Minor differences were observed for the heart in left-sided patients. Plans for all tested techniques were found to lie on their respective Pareto fronts. Conclusions: Overall, TD provided significantly better results in terms of target coverage and dose sparing of ipsilateral lung with respect to all other evaluated techniques. It also significantly minimized dose to contralateral breast together with FiF. Pareto front analysis confirmed the reliability of the optimization for a selected case. Keywords: Treatment planning, Whole-breast irradiation, Planning comparison, Pareto fron

Physical considerations on discrepancies in target volume delineation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the delineations and interpretations of target volumes by physicians in different radio-oncology centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven Swiss radio-oncology centers delineated volumes according to ICRU 50 recommendations for one prostate and one head and neck case. In order to evaluate the consistency of the volume delineations, the following parameters were determined: 1) the target volumes (GTV, CTV and manually expanded PTV) and their extensions in the three main axes and 2) the correlation of the volume delineated by each pair of centers using the ratio of the intersection to the union (called proximity index). RESULTS: The delineated prostate volume was 105+/-55cm(3) for the CTV and 218+/-44cm(3) for the PTV. The delineated head and neck volume was 46+/-15cm(3) for the GTV, 327+/-154cm(3) for the CTV and 528+/-106cm(3) for the PTV. The mean proximity index for the prostate case was 0.50+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.57+/-0.11 for the PTV. The proximity index for the head and neck case was 0.45+/-0.09 for the GTV, 0.42+/-0.13 for the CTV and 0.59+/-0.06 for the PTV. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies between all the delineated target volumes were observed. There was an inverse relationship between the CTV volume and the margin between CTV and PTV, leading to less discrepancies in the PTV than is the CTV delineations. There was more spread in the sagittal and frontal planes due to CT pixel anisotropy, which suggests that radiation oncologists should delineate the target volumes not only in the transverse plane, but also in the sagittal and frontal planes to improve the delineation by allowing a consistency check

The reasons for discrepancies in target volume delineation : a SASRO study on head-and-neck and prostate cancers.

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)