PURPOSE: We conducted a comparative study of clinical target volume (CTV) definition of pelvic lymph nodes by multiple genitourinary (GU) radiation oncologists looking at the levels of discrepancies amongst this group. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pelvic computed tomography (CT) scans from 2 men were distributed to 14 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group GU radiation oncologists with instructions to define CTVs for the iliac and presacral lymph nodes. The CT data with contours were then returned for analysis. In addition, a questionnaire was completed that described the physicians' method for target volume definition. RESULTS: Significant variation in the definition of the iliac and presacral CTVs was seen among the physicians. The minimum, maximum, mean (SD) iliac volumes (mL) were 81.8, 876.6, 337.6 +/- 203 for case 1 and 60.3, 627.7, 251.8 +/- 159.3 for case 2. The volume of 100% agreement was 30.6 and 17.4 for case 1 and 2 and the volume of the union of all contours was 1,012.0 and 807.4 for case 1 and 2, respectively. The overall agreement was judged to be moderate in both cases (kappa = 0.53 (p < 0.0001) and kappa = 0.48 (p < 0.0001). There was no volume of 100% agreement for either of the two presacral volumes. These variations were confirmed in the responses to the associated questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disagreement exists in the definition of the CTV for pelvic nodal radiation therapy among GU radiation oncology specialists. A consensus needs to be developed so as to accurately assess the merit and safety of such treatment.
PURPOSE: We conducted a comparative study of clinical target volume (CTV) definition of pelvic lymph nodes by multiple genitourinary (GU) radiation oncologists looking at the levels of discrepancies amongst this group. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pelvic computed tomography (CT) scans from 2 men were distributed to 14 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group GU radiation oncologists with instructions to define CTVs for the iliac and presacral lymph nodes. The CT data with contours were then returned for analysis. In addition, a questionnaire was completed that described the physicians' method for target volume definition. RESULTS: Significant variation in the definition of the iliac and presacral CTVs was seen among the physicians. The minimum, maximum, mean (SD) iliac volumes (mL) were 81.8, 876.6, 337.6 +/- 203 for case 1 and 60.3, 627.7, 251.8 +/- 159.3 for case 2. The volume of 100% agreement was 30.6 and 17.4 for case 1 and 2 and the volume of the union of all contours was 1,012.0 and 807.4 for case 1 and 2, respectively. The overall agreement was judged to be moderate in both cases (kappa = 0.53 (p < 0.0001) and kappa = 0.48 (p < 0.0001). There was no volume of 100% agreement for either of the two presacral volumes. These variations were confirmed in the responses to the associated questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disagreement exists in the definition of the CTV for pelvic nodal radiation therapy among GU radiation oncology specialists. A consensus needs to be developed so as to accurately assess the merit and safety of such treatment.
Authors: Miljenko V Pilepich; Kathryn Winter; Colleen A Lawton; Robert E Krisch; Harvey B Wolkov; Benjamin Movsas; Eugen B Hug; Sucha O Asbell; David Grignon Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mack Roach; Michelle DeSilvio; Richard Valicenti; David Grignon; Sucha O Asbell; Colleen Lawton; Charles R Thomas; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; Léo Blank; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Johan Mattelaer; José Lopez Torecilla; J Rafael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Alfredo Zurlo; Marianne Pierart Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Eric M Horwitz; Kyounghwa Bae; Gerald E Hanks; Arthur Porter; David J Grignon; Harmar D Brereton; Varagur Venkatesan; Colleen A Lawton; Seth A Rosenthal; Howard M Sandler; William U Shipley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colleen A Lawton; Michelle DeSilvio; Mack Roach; Valery Uhl; Robert Kirsch; Michael Seider; Marvin Rotman; Christopher Jones; Sucha Asbell; Richard Valicenti; Stephen Hahn; Charles R Thomas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S Gwynne; E Spezi; D Sebag-Montefiore; S Mukherjee; E Miles; J Conibear; J Staffurth Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Johan Wouters; Katrien Vandecasteele; Philippe Vuye; Frank Vanpachtenbeke; Katharina D'Herde; Ingrid Kerckaert; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Rawan Allozi; X Allen Li; Julia White; Aditya Apte; An Tai; Jeff M Michalski; Walter R Bosch; Issam El Naqa Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Seth A Rosenthal; Daniel Hunt; A Oliver Sartor; Kenneth J Pienta; Leonard Gomella; David Grignon; Raghu Rajan; Kevin J Kerlin; Christopher U Jones; Michael Dobelbower; William U Shipley; Kenneth Zeitzer; Daniel A Hamstra; Viroon Donavanik; Marvin Rotman; Alan C Hartford; Jeffrey Michalski; Michael Seider; Harold Kim; Deborah A Kuban; Jennifer Moughan; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeremiah Hwee; Alexander V Louie; Stewart Gaede; Glenn Bauman; David D'Souza; Tracy Sexton; Michael Lock; Belal Ahmad; George Rodrigues Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 3.481