4.7 Article

ESTRO consensus guideline on target volume delineation for elective radiation therapy of early stage breast cancer

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 114, 期 1, 页码 3-10

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.030

关键词

Breast cancer; Lymph nodes; Axillary nodes; Worldwide consensus; Guideline; Target volume delineation

资金

  1. Danish Cancer Society
  2. Health Research Fund of Central Denmark Region
  3. Cancer Research UK [19727] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. The Danish Cancer Society [R90-A5856] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Delineation of clinical target volumes (CTVs) is a weak link in radiation therapy (RT), and large inter-observer variation is seen in breast cancer patients. Several guidelines have been proposed, but most result in larger CTVs than based on conventional simulator-based RT. The aim was to develop a delineation guideline obtained by consensus between a broad European group of radiation oncologists. Material and methods: During ESTRO teaching courses on breast cancer, teachers sought consensus on delineation of CTV through dialogue based on cases. One teacher delineated CTV on CT scans of 2 patients, followed by discussion and adaptation of the delineation. The consensus established between teachers was sent to other teams working in the same field, both locally and on a national level, for their input. This was followed by developing a broad consensus based on discussions. Results: Borders of the CTV encompassing a 5 mm margin around the large veins, running through the regional lymph node levels were agreed, and for the breast/thoracic wall other vessels were pointed out to guide delineation, with comments on margins for patients with advanced breast cancer. Conclusion: The ESTRO consensus on CTV for elective RT of breast cancer, endorsed by a broad base of the radiation oncology community, is presented to improve consistency. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据