Hany Soliman1, Mark Ruschin2, Lilyana Angelov3, Paul D Brown4, Veronica L S Chiang5, John P Kirkpatrick6, Simon S Lo7, Anita Mahajan4, Kevin S Oh8, Jason P Sheehan9, Scott G Soltys10, Arjun Sahgal2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: hany.soliman@sunnybrook.ca. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To propose contouring guidelines based on consensus contours generated by 10 international experts for cavity stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), an emerging treatment option after surgical resection of brain metastases. No guidelines for contouring the surgical cavity volume have been previously reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten postoperative completely resected cases with varying clinical scenarios and locations within the brain were selected. For each case, 10 experts independently contoured the surgical cavity clinical target volume (CTV). All the contours were analyzed, and agreement was calculated using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) with the kappa statistic. A follow-up survey was also completed by each investigator to summarize their contouring rationale for a number of different clinical scenarios. The results from the survey and the consensus STAPLE contours were both summarized to establish contouring guidelines. RESULTS: A high level of agreement was found between the expert CTV contours (mean sensitivity 0.75, mean specificity 0.98), and the mean kappa was 0.65. The agreement was statistically significant at P<.001 for all cases. From these results and analyses of the survey answers, the recommendations for CTV include fusion of the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan to aid in volume delineation; contouring the entire surgical tract regardless of the preoperative location of the tumor; extension of the CTV 5 to 10 mm along the dura overlying the bone flap to account for microscopic disease extension in cases with preoperative dural contact; and a margin of ≤5 mm into the adjacent sinus when preoperative venous sinus contact was present. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative completely resected cavity SRS treatment were established using expert contours and clinical practice. However, in the absence of clinical data supporting these recommendations, these guidelines serve as a baseline for further study and refinement.
PURPOSE: To propose contouring guidelines based on consensus contours generated by 10 international experts for cavity stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), an emerging treatment option after surgical resection of brain metastases. No guidelines for contouring the surgical cavity volume have been previously reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten postoperative completely resected cases with varying clinical scenarios and locations within the brain were selected. For each case, 10 experts independently contoured the surgical cavity clinical target volume (CTV). All the contours were analyzed, and agreement was calculated using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) with the kappa statistic. A follow-up survey was also completed by each investigator to summarize their contouring rationale for a number of different clinical scenarios. The results from the survey and the consensus STAPLE contours were both summarized to establish contouring guidelines. RESULTS: A high level of agreement was found between the expert CTV contours (mean sensitivity 0.75, mean specificity 0.98), and the mean kappa was 0.65. The agreement was statistically significant at P<.001 for all cases. From these results and analyses of the survey answers, the recommendations for CTV include fusion of the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan to aid in volume delineation; contouring the entire surgical tract regardless of the preoperative location of the tumor; extension of the CTV 5 to 10 mm along the dura overlying the bone flap to account for microscopic disease extension in cases with preoperative dural contact; and a margin of ≤5 mm into the adjacent sinus when preoperative venous sinus contact was present. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative completely resected cavity SRS treatment were established using expert contours and clinical practice. However, in the absence of clinical data supporting these recommendations, these guidelines serve as a baseline for further study and refinement.
Authors: Ahmad Walid Ayas; Stefan Grau; Karolina Jablonska; Daniel Ruess; Maximilian Ruge; Simone Marnitz; Roland Goldbrunner; Martin Kocher Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Hima B Musunuru; Jacob S Witt; Poonam Yadav; David M Francis; Aleksandra Kuczmarska-Haas; Zacariah E Labby; Michael F Bassetti; Steven P Howard; Andrew M Baschnagel Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Timothy K Nguyen; Arjun Sahgal; Jay Detsky; Eshetu G Atenafu; Sten Myrehaug; Chia-Lin Tseng; Zain Husain; Chris Heyn; Pejman Maralani; Mark Ruschin; James Perry; Hany Soliman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: John H Suh; Rupesh Kotecha; Samuel T Chao; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Arjun Sahgal; Eric L Chang Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Sidyarth Garimall; Mihir Shanker; Erin Johns; Trevor Watkins; Sarah Olson; Michael Huo; Matthew C Foote; Mark B Pinkham Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.130