4.7 Article

RTOG GU RADIATION ONCOLOGY SPECIALISTS REACH CONSENSUS ON PELVIC LYMPH NODE VOLUMES FOR HIGH-RISK PROSTATE CANCER

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.002

Keywords

Prostate cancer; Pelvic lymph nodes; Target volume; IMRT; Radiation oncology guidelines

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA21661, U24 CA081647, U24 CA081647-11, CA32115, U10 CA037422, CA37422, U10 CA032115, U10 CA021661] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer is required on several Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Based on a prior lymph node contouring shown significant disagreement in the definition of pelvic lymph node volumes among genitourinary radiation oncology specialists involved in developing and executing current RTOG trials. Materials and Methods: A consensus meeting was held on October 3, 2007, to reach agreement on pelvic lymph mode volumes. Data were presented to address the lymph node drainage of the prostate. Extensive discussion ensued to develop clinical target volume (CTV) pelvic lymph node consensus. Results: Consensus was obtained resulting in computed tomography image-based pelvic lymph node CTVs. Based on this consensus, the pelvic lymph node volumes to be irradiated include: distal common iliac, presacral lymph nodes (SI-SA external iliac lymph nodes, internal iliac lymph nodes, and obturator lymph nodes. Lymph node CTVs include the vessels (artery and vein) and a 7-mm radial margin being careful to carve out bowel, bladder, bone, and muscle. Volumes begin at the L5/S1 interspace and end at the superior aspect of the pubic bone. Consensus on dose-volume histogram constraints for OARs was also attained. Conclusions: Consensus on pelvic lymph node CTVs for radiation therapy to address high-risk prostate cancer was attained and is available as web-based computed tomography images as well as a descriptive format through the RTOG. This will allow for uniformity in evaluating the benefit and risk of such treatment. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available