International consensus guidelines on Clinical Target Volume delineation in rectal cancer
Affiliation auteurs | !!!! Error affiliation !!!! |
Titre | International consensus guidelines on Clinical Target Volume delineation in rectal cancer |
Type de publication | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2016 |
Auteurs | Valentini V, Gambacorta MAntonietta, Barbaro B, Chiloiro G, Coco C, Das P, Fanfani F, Joye I, Kachnic L, Maingon P, Marijnen C, Ngan S, Haustermans K |
Journal | RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY |
Volume | 120 |
Pagination | 195-201 |
Date Published | AUG |
Type of Article | Article |
ISSN | 0167-8140 |
Mots-clés | Clinical Target Volume delineation, Consensus guidelines, Rectal cancer |
Résumé | Introduction: The delineation of Clinical Target Volume (CTV) is a critical step in radiotherapy. Several guidelines suggest different subvolumes and anatomical boundaries in rectal cancer (RC), potentially leading to a misunderstanding in the CTV definition. International consensus guidelines (CG) are needed to improve uniformity in RC CTV delineation. Material and methods: The 7 radiation oncologist experts defined a roadmap to produce RC CG. Step 1: revision of the published guidelines. Step 2: selection of RC cases with different clinical stages. Step 3: delineation of cases using Falcon following previously published guidelines. Step 4: meeting in person to. discuss the initial delineation outcome, followed by a CTV proposal based on revised and if needed, adapted anatomical boundaries. Step 5: peer review of the agreed consensus. Step 6: peer review meeting to validate the final outcome. Step 7: completion of RC delineation atlases. Results: A new ontology of structure sets was defined and the related table of anatomical boundaries was generated. The major modifications were about the lateral lymph nodes and the ischio-rectal fossa delineation. Seven RC cases were made available online as consultation atlases. Conclusion: The definition of international CG for RC delineation endorsed by international experts might support a future homogeneous comparison between clinical trial outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. |
DOI | 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.017 |