PURPOSE: Different international target volume delineation guidelines exist and different treatment techniques are available for salvage radiation therapy (RT) for recurrent prostate cancer, but less is known regarding their respective applicability in clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A randomized phase III trial testing 64 Gy vs 70 Gy salvage RT was accompanied by an intense quality assurance program including a site-specific and study-specific questionnaire and a dummy run (DR). Target volume delineation was performed according to the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines, and a DR-based treatment plan was established for 70 Gy. Major and minor protocol deviations were noted, interobserver agreement of delineated target contours was assessed, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of different treatment techniques were compared. RESULTS:Thirty European centers participated, 43% of which were using3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), with the remaining centers using intensity modulated RT (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc technique (VMAT). The first submitted version of the DR contained major deviations in 21 of 30 (70%) centers, mostly caused by inappropriately defined or lack of prostate bed (PB). All but 5 centers completed the DR successfully with their second submitted version. The interobserver agreement of the PB was moderate and was improved by the DR review, as indicated by an increased κ value (0.59 vs 0.55), mean sensitivity (0.64 vs 0.58), volume of total agreement (3.9 vs 3.3 cm(3)), and decrease in the union volume (79.3 vs 84.2 cm(3)). Rectal and bladder wall DVH parameters of IMRT and VMAT vs 3D-CRT plans were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver agreement of PB delineation was moderate but was improved by the DR. Major deviations could be identified for the majority of centers. The DR has improved the acquaintance of the participating centers with the trial protocol.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Different international target volume delineation guidelines exist and different treatment techniques are available for salvage radiation therapy (RT) for recurrent prostate cancer, but less is known regarding their respective applicability in clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A randomized phase III trial testing 64 Gy vs 70 Gy salvage RT was accompanied by an intense quality assurance program including a site-specific and study-specific questionnaire and a dummy run (DR). Target volume delineation was performed according to the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines, and a DR-based treatment plan was established for 70 Gy. Major and minor protocol deviations were noted, interobserver agreement of delineated target contours was assessed, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of different treatment techniques were compared. RESULTS: Thirty European centers participated, 43% of which were using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), with the remaining centers using intensity modulated RT (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc technique (VMAT). The first submitted version of the DR contained major deviations in 21 of 30 (70%) centers, mostly caused by inappropriately defined or lack of prostate bed (PB). All but 5 centers completed the DR successfully with their second submitted version. The interobserver agreement of the PB was moderate and was improved by the DR review, as indicated by an increased κ value (0.59 vs 0.55), mean sensitivity (0.64 vs 0.58), volume of total agreement (3.9 vs 3.3 cm(3)), and decrease in the union volume (79.3 vs 84.2 cm(3)). Rectal and bladder wall DVH parameters of IMRT and VMAT vs 3D-CRT plans were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver agreement of PB delineation was moderate but was improved by the DR. Major deviations could be identified for the majority of centers. The DR has improved the acquaintance of the participating centers with the trial protocol.
Authors: A Karl; A Buchner; C Tympner; T Kirchner; U Ganswindt; C Belka; R Ganzer; M Burger; F Eder; F Hofstädter; D Schilling; K Sievert; A Stenzl; M Scharpf; F Fend; F Vom Dorp; H Rübben; K Schmid; D Porres-Knoblauch; A Heidenreich; B Hangarter; R Knüchel-Clarke; M Rogenhofer; B Wullich; A Hartmann; E Comploj; A Pycha; E Hanspeter; D Pehrke; G Sauter; M Graefen; C Stief; A Haese Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marcus Beck; Tomasz Barelkowski; David Kaul; Sascha Wecker; Alexander H Thieme; Daniel R Zwahlen; Peter Wust; Daniel M Aebersold; Volker Budach; Pirus Ghadjar Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 6.244