Anne W Lee1, Wai Tong Ng2, Jian Ji Pan3, Sharon S Poh4, Yong Chan Ahn5, Hussain AlHussain6, June Corry7, Cai Grau8, Vincent Grégoire9, Kevin J Harrington10, Chao Su Hu11, Dora L Kwong12, Johannes A Langendijk13, Quynh Thu Le14, Nancy Y Lee15, Jin Ching Lin16, Tai Xiang Lu17, William M Mendenhall18, Brian O'Sullivan19, Enis Ozyar20, Lester J Peters21, David I Rosenthal22, Yoke Lim Soong4, Yungan Tao23, Sue S Yom24, Joseph T Wee25. 1. Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong and University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 2. Department of Clinical Oncology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian l Cancer Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. 4. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 7. Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Université catholique de Louvain, St-Luc University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. 10. The Royal Marsden/The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, China. 12. Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong. 13. Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, NRG Oncology and HNCIG, USA. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, USA. 16. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 17. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 18. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, USA. 19. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada. 20. Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 21. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 22. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 23. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France. 24. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California - San Francisco, USA. 25. Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore. Electronic address: joseph.wee.t.s@singhealth.com.sg.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Target delineation in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) often proves challenging because of the notoriously narrow therapeutic margin. High doses are needed to achieve optimal levels of tumour control, and dosimetric inadequacy remains one of the most important independent factors affecting treatment outcome. METHOD: A review of the available literature addressing the natural behaviour of NPC and correlation between clinical and pathological aspects of the disease was conducted. Existing international guidelines as well as published protocols specified by clinical trials on contouring of clinical target volumes (CTV) were compared. This information was then summarized into a preliminary draft guideline which was then circulated to international experts in the field for exchange of opinions and subsequent voting on areas with the greatest controversies. RESULTS: Common areas of uncertainty and variation in practices among experts experienced in radiation therapy for NPC were elucidated. Iterative revisions were made based on extensive discussion and final voting on controversial areas by the expert panel, to formulate the recommendations on contouring of CTV based on optimal geometric expansion and anatomical editing for those structures with substantial risk of microscopic infiltration. CONCLUSION: Through this comprehensive review of available evidence and best practices at major institutions, as well as interactive exchange of vast experience by international experts, this set of consensus guidelines has been developed to provide a practical reference for appropriate contouring to ensure optimal target coverage. However, the final decision on the treatment volumes should be based on full consideration of individual patients' factors and facilities of an individual centre (including the quality of imaging methods and the precision of treatment delivery).
PURPOSE: Target delineation in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) often proves challenging because of the notoriously narrow therapeutic margin. High doses are needed to achieve optimal levels of tumour control, and dosimetric inadequacy remains one of the most important independent factors affecting treatment outcome. METHOD: A review of the available literature addressing the natural behaviour of NPC and correlation between clinical and pathological aspects of the disease was conducted. Existing international guidelines as well as published protocols specified by clinical trials on contouring of clinical target volumes (CTV) were compared. This information was then summarized into a preliminary draft guideline which was then circulated to international experts in the field for exchange of opinions and subsequent voting on areas with the greatest controversies. RESULTS: Common areas of uncertainty and variation in practices among experts experienced in radiation therapy for NPC were elucidated. Iterative revisions were made based on extensive discussion and final voting on controversial areas by the expert panel, to formulate the recommendations on contouring of CTV based on optimal geometric expansion and anatomical editing for those structures with substantial risk of microscopic infiltration. CONCLUSION: Through this comprehensive review of available evidence and best practices at major institutions, as well as interactive exchange of vast experience by international experts, this set of consensus guidelines has been developed to provide a practical reference for appropriate contouring to ensure optimal target coverage. However, the final decision on the treatment volumes should be based on full consideration of individual patients' factors and facilities of an individual centre (including the quality of imaging methods and the precision of treatment delivery).
Authors: Jenny Bertholet; Paul-Henry Mackeprang; Silvan Mueller; Gian Guyer; Hannes A Loebner; Yanick Wyss; Daniel Frei; Werner Volken; Olgun Elicin; Daniel M Aebersold; Michael K Fix; Peter Manser Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Kenneth C W Wong; Edwin P Hui; Kwok-Wai Lo; Wai Kei Jacky Lam; David Johnson; Lili Li; Qian Tao; Kwan Chee Allen Chan; Ka-Fai To; Ann D King; Brigette B Y Ma; Anthony T C Chan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 66.675