Literature DB >> 24674164

Contouring inguinal and femoral nodes; how much margin is needed around the vessels?

Carolyn H Kim1, Adam C Olson2, Hayeon Kim1, Sushil Beriwal3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal margin needed around the femoral vessels for appropriate inguinofemoral lymph node coverage and to propose guidelines defined by anatomic boundaries for clinical target volume delineation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two patients with pelvic malignancies and involved inguinal lymph nodes treated with conformal radiation therapy were selected. Lymph nodes were considered positive if they were pathologically malignant by biopsy, had 1(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose avidity on positron emission tomography or measured ≥1.5 cm on computed tomographic scan. We measured distance from the center of node(s) to the edge of the nearest femoral vessel.
RESULTS: There were 52 total positive inguinal nodes among 22 patients. Relative to the femoral vessels, the location of the nodes were 51.9% anteromedial, 21.2% anterior, 11.5% anterolateral, 9.6% medial, 1.9% posterior, and 3.9% lateral. To cover ≥90% disease, the margins needed around the nearest femoral vessel were anteromedial ≥35 mm, anterior ≥23 mm, anterolateral ≥25 mm, medial ≥22 mm, posterior ≥9 mm, and ≥32 mm lateral. The corresponding anatomic boundaries were the following: laterally, medial border of the iliopsoas; medially, lateral border of adductor longus or medial end of pectineus; posteriorly, iliopsoas muscle laterally and anterior aspect of the pectineus muscle; medially and anteriorly, the anterior edge of the sartorius muscle. Most of the macroscopic nodes were medial or anteromedial to the femoral vessels. No patient had involved posterior or lateral nodes alone without positive nodes in the anterior or anteromedial positions.
CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential margins around femoral vessels required to adequately cover this nodal region were >2 cm in most directions. Contouring the inguinal lymph nodes as a compartment defined by the anatomic landmarks suggested above may be more reproducible. Physicians should exercise caution in extrapolating pelvic nodal contouring guidelines to inguinal lymph nodal contouring.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 24674164     DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2011.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1879-8500


  4 in total

1.  Consensus Recommendations for Radiation Therapy Contouring and Treatment of Vulvar Carcinoma.

Authors:  David K Gaffney; Bronwyn King; Akila N Viswanathan; Maroie Barkati; Sushil Beriwal; Patricia Eifel; Beth Erickson; Anthony Fyles; Jennifer Goulart; Matthew Harkenrider; Anuja Jhingran; Ann Klopp; Wui-Jin Koh; Karen Lim; Ivy Petersen; Lorraine Portelance; William Small; Alexandra Stewart; Ericka Wiebe; Aaron Wolfson; Catheryn Yashar; Walter Bosch
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-02-21       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Identification of risk factors and characteristics of supraclavicular lymph node metastasis in patients with small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Zhen-Xing Feng; Lu-Jun Zhao; Yong Guan; Yao Sun; Mao-Bin Meng; Kai Ji; Ping Wang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-09       Impact factor: 3.064

3.  Intensity modulated radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva: Treatment technique and outcomes.

Authors:  Yuan James Rao; Anupama Chundury; Julie K Schwarz; Comron Hassanzadeh; Todd DeWees; Daniel Mullen; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; Perry W Grigsby
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-02-28

4.  Identification of risk factors and the pattern of lower cervical lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer: implications for radiotherapy target delineation.

Authors:  Yijun Luo; Xiaoli Wang; Yuhui Liu; Chengang Wang; Yong Huang; Jinming Yu; Minghuan Li
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.