Kristin J Redmond1, Scott Robertson2, Simon S Lo3, Scott G Soltys4, Samuel Ryu5, Todd McNutt2, Samuel T Chao6, Yoshiya Yamada7, Amol Ghia8, Eric L Chang9, Jason Sheehan10, Arjun Sahgal11. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: kjanson3@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-oncology Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Norris Cancer Center and Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 10. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten spine SBRT specialists representing 10 international centers independently contoured the clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), spinal cord, and spinal cord planning organ at risk volume (PRV) for 10 representative clinical scenarios in postoperative spine SBRT for metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Contours were imported into the Computational Environment for Radiotherapy Research. Agreement between physicians was calculated with an expectation minimization algorithm using simultaneous truth and performance level estimation with κ statistics. Target volume definition guidelines were established by finding optimized confidence level consensus contours using histogram agreement analyses. RESULTS: Nine expert radiation oncologists and 1 neurosurgeon completed contours for all 10 cases. The mean sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (range, 0.71-0.89) and 0.94 (range, 0.90-0.99) for the CTV and 0.79 (range, 0.70-0.95) and 0.92 (range, 0.87-0.99) for the PTV), respectively. Mean κ agreement, which demonstrates the probability that contours agree by chance alone, was 0.58 (range, 0.43-0.70) for CTV and 0.58 (range, 0.37-0.76) for PTV (P<.001 for all cases). Optimized consensus contours were established for all patients with 80% confidence interval. Recommendations for CTV include treatment of the entire preoperative extent of bony and epidural disease, plus immediately adjacent bony anatomic compartments at risk of microscopic disease extension. In particular, a "donut-shaped" CTV was consistently applied in cases of preoperative circumferential epidural extension, regardless of extent of residual epidural extension. Otherwise more conformal anatomic-based CTVs were determined and described. Spinal instrumentation was consistently excluded from the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: We provide consensus contouring guidelines for common scenarios in postoperative SBRT for spinal metastases. These consensus guidelines are subject to clinical validation.
PURPOSE: To develop consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten spine SBRT specialists representing 10 international centers independently contoured the clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), spinal cord, and spinal cord planning organ at risk volume (PRV) for 10 representative clinical scenarios in postoperative spine SBRT for metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Contours were imported into the Computational Environment for Radiotherapy Research. Agreement between physicians was calculated with an expectation minimization algorithm using simultaneous truth and performance level estimation with κ statistics. Target volume definition guidelines were established by finding optimized confidence level consensus contours using histogram agreement analyses. RESULTS: Nine expert radiation oncologists and 1 neurosurgeon completed contours for all 10 cases. The mean sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (range, 0.71-0.89) and 0.94 (range, 0.90-0.99) for the CTV and 0.79 (range, 0.70-0.95) and 0.92 (range, 0.87-0.99) for the PTV), respectively. Mean κ agreement, which demonstrates the probability that contours agree by chance alone, was 0.58 (range, 0.43-0.70) for CTV and 0.58 (range, 0.37-0.76) for PTV (P<.001 for all cases). Optimized consensus contours were established for all patients with 80% confidence interval. Recommendations for CTV include treatment of the entire preoperative extent of bony and epidural disease, plus immediately adjacent bony anatomic compartments at risk of microscopic disease extension. In particular, a "donut-shaped" CTV was consistently applied in cases of preoperative circumferential epidural extension, regardless of extent of residual epidural extension. Otherwise more conformal anatomic-based CTVs were determined and described. Spinal instrumentation was consistently excluded from the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: We provide consensus contouring guidelines for common scenarios in postoperative SBRT for spinal metastases. These consensus guidelines are subject to clinical validation.
Authors: Zachary D Epstein-Peterson; Adam Sullivan; Monica Krishnan; Julie T Chen; Marco Ferrone; John Ready; Elizabeth H Baldini; Tracy Balboni Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-04-06
Authors: Jian-Yue Jin; Qing Chen; Ryan Jin; Jack Rock; Joseph Anderson; Shidong Li; Benjamin Movsas; Samuel Ryu Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-04
Authors: Arjun Sahgal; Vivian Weinberg; Lijun Ma; Eric Chang; Sam Chao; Alexander Muacevic; Alessandra Gorgulho; Scott Soltys; Peter C Gerszten; Sam Ryu; Lilyana Angelov; Iris Gibbs; C Shun Wong; David A Larson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Samuel Ryu; Jian-Yue Jin; Ryan Jin; Jack Rock; Munther Ajlouni; Benjamin Movsas; Mark Rosenblum; Jae Ho Kim Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Anick Nater; Lindsay Tetreault; Branko Kopjar; Paul Arnold; Mark Dekutoski; Joel Finkelstein; Charles Fisher; John France; Ziya Gokaslan; Eric Massicotte; Laurence Rhines; Peter Rose; Arjun Sahgal; James Schuster; Alexander Vaccaro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Varun Puvanesarajah; Sheng-Fu Larry Lo; Nafi Aygun; Jason A Liauw; Ignacio Jusué-Torres; Ioan A Lina; Uri Hadelsberg; Benjamin D Elder; Ali Bydon; Chetan Bettegowda; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Daniele Rigamonti; Lawrence R Kleinberg; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham; Kristin J Redmond; Michael Lim Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-07-31
Authors: Ran Harel; Todd Emch; Samuel Chao; Paul Elson; Ajit Krishnaney; Toufik Djemil; John Suh; Lilyana Angelov Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Claudio E Tatsui; R Jason Stafford; Jing Li; Jonathan N Sellin; Behrang Amini; Ganesh Rao; Dima Suki; Amol J Ghia; Paul Brown; Sun-Ho Lee; Charles E Cowles; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Laurence D Rhines Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-07-03
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Ilya Laufer; Adam Robin; Ran Xu; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Peter C Gerszten; Sten Myrehaug; Nina A Mayr; William Tc Yuh; Pejman Jabehdar Maralani; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Oluwaseun O Akinduro; Gaetano De Biase; Anshit Goyal; Jenna H Meyer; Sukhwinder J S Sandhu; Roman O Kowalchuk; Daniel M Trifiletti; Jason Sheehan; Kenneth W Merrell; Sujay A Vora; Daniel F Broderick; Michelle J Clarke; Mohamad Bydon; Jamal McClendon; Maziyar A Kalani; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; Kingsley Abode-Iyamah Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Gustavo N Marta; Fernando F de Arruda; Fabiana A Miranda; Alice R N S Silva; Wellington F P Neves-Junior; Anselmo Mancini; Samir A Hanna; Carlos E C V Abreu; João Luis F da Silva; Jose Eduardo V Nascimento; Cecília Maria K Haddad; Fabio Y Moraes; Rafael Gadia Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2021-09-30
Authors: F Lopez-Campos; J Cacicedo; F Couñago; R García; O Leaman-Alcibar; A Navarro-Martin; H Pérez-Montero; A Conde-Moreno Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Khaled Dibs; Dukagjin M Blakaj; Rahul N Prasad; Alexander Olausson; Eric C Bourekas; Daniel Boulter; Ahmet S Ayan; Eric Cochran; William S Marras; Prasath Mageswaran; Evan Thomas; Hyeri Lee; John Grecula; Raju R Raval; Ehud Mendel; Thomas Scharschmidt; Russell Lonser; Arnab Chakravarti; James B Elder; Joshua D Palmer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 5.738