TY - JOUR
T1 - NRG Oncology Updated International Consensus Atlas on Pelvic Lymph Node Volumes for Intact and Postoperative Prostate Cancer
AU - Hall, William A.
AU - Paulson, Eric
AU - Davis, Brian J.
AU - Spratt, Daniel E.
AU - Morgan, Todd M.
AU - Dearnaley, David
AU - Tree, Alison C.
AU - Efstathiou, Jason A.
AU - Harisinghani, Mukesh
AU - Jani, Ashesh B.
AU - Buyyounouski, Mark K.
AU - Pisansky, Thomas M.
AU - Tran, Phuoc T.
AU - Karnes, R. Jeffrey
AU - Chen, Ronald C.
AU - Cury, Fabio L.
AU - Michalski, Jeff M.
AU - Rosenthal, Seth A.
AU - Koontz, Bridget F.
AU - Wong, Anthony C.
AU - Nguyen, Paul L.
AU - Hope, Thomas A.
AU - Feng, Felix
AU - Sandler, Howard M.
AU - Lawton, Colleen A.F.
N1 - Funding Information:
Medical College of Wisconsin Libraries and MIM provided technical support (MIM Inc, Beachwood, OH). Katie Kruger provided meeting coordination and manuscript formatting. This work represents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department for Health and Social Care. The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Award Number KL2TR001438. The content is solely the responsibility of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Disclosures: R.C. reports personal fees from Abbvie and Accuray, outside the submitted work. F.L.C. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Varian Medical Systems, and grants from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. B.J.D. reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, Inc, outside the submitted work. D.D. reports personal fees from The Institute of Cancer Research, during the conduct of the study; in addition, D.D. has a patent EP1933709B1 issued. J.A.E. reports personal fees from Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Taris Biomedical, Janssen, Bayer Healthcare, and Roivant Pharma, outside the submitted work. F.F. reports personal fees from Dendreon, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Ferring, Sanofi, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Celgene, Medivation/Astellas, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech and other from PFS Genomics and Nutcracker Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; in addition, F.F. has a patent EP3047037 A4 issued. W.A.H. reports technical support from MIM Software Inc, during the conduct of the study, and other from Elekta AB, outside the submitted work. T.A.H. reports grants from Philips Healthcare and Advanced Accelerator Applications and personal fees from Curium and Ipsen, outside the submitted work. B.F.K. reports grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs, grants and personal fees from Blue Earth Diagnostics, grants from Merck, and personal fees from Demos Publishing, outside the submitted work. P.L.N. reports personal fees from COTA, Ferring, Astellas, Dendreon, Blue Earth Diagnostics, and Boston Scientific; grants and personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; and personal fees and other from Augmenix, outside the submitted work. E.P. reports other from Elekta AB, outside the submitted work. H.M.S. reports personal fees from Janssen and other from Radiogel, outside the submitted work and is a member of the ASTRO Board of Directors. D.E.S. reports personal fees from Janssen, Blue Earth, and AstraZenica, outside the submitted work. P.T.T. reports grants from Astellas Pharm and Bayer Healthcare; grants, personal fees, and other from RefleXion Medical Inc; and personal fees from Noxopharm, outside the submitted work; in addition, P.T.T. has a patent Compounds and Methods of Use in Ablative Radiotherapy (#9114158) licensed to Natsar Pharm. A.C.T. reports grants and personal fees from Elekta; grants from Accuray and Varian; personal fees from Janssen, Genesis healthcare, and Ferring; and nonfinancial support from Astellas, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding Information:
Medical College of Wisconsin Libraries and MIM provided technical support (MIM Inc, Beachwood, OH). Katie Kruger provided meeting coordination and manuscript formatting. This work represents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department for Health and Social Care. The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Award Number KL2TR001438. The content is solely the responsibility of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/1/1
Y1 - 2021/1/1
N2 - Purpose: In 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas. Methods and Materials: A literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity. Results: Eighteen radiation oncologists’ contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists’ volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm3, intact node positive case was 409 cm3, and intact node negative case was 342 cm3. Compared with the original RTOG consensus, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the postoperative case was 0.63 (standard deviation [SD] 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.68 (SD 0.13), and the intact node negative case was 0.66 (SD 0.18). The mean Hausdorff distance (in cm) for the postoperative case was 0.24 (SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.23 (SD 0.09), and intact node negative case was 0.33 (SD 0.24). Four regions of CTV controversy were identified, and consensus for each of these areas was reached. Conclusions: Discordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed.
AB - Purpose: In 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas. Methods and Materials: A literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity. Results: Eighteen radiation oncologists’ contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists’ volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm3, intact node positive case was 409 cm3, and intact node negative case was 342 cm3. Compared with the original RTOG consensus, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the postoperative case was 0.63 (standard deviation [SD] 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.68 (SD 0.13), and the intact node negative case was 0.66 (SD 0.18). The mean Hausdorff distance (in cm) for the postoperative case was 0.24 (SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.23 (SD 0.09), and intact node negative case was 0.33 (SD 0.24). Four regions of CTV controversy were identified, and consensus for each of these areas was reached. Conclusions: Discordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092542250&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.034
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.034
M3 - Article
C2 - 32861817
AN - SCOPUS:85092542250
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 109
SP - 174
EP - 185
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 1
ER -