» Articles » PMID: 32016496

Dosimetric Comparison of Organs at Risk Using Different Contouring Guidelines for Definition of the Clinical Target Volume in Anal Cancer

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2020 Feb 5
PMID 32016496
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using different CTV definitions.

Methods: Twelve patients with a primary diagnosis of anal cancer, who were treated with primary chemoradiation (CRT), were selected. We generated four guideline-specific CTVs and subsequently planned target volumes (PTVs) on the planning CT scan of each patient. An IMRT plan for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was set up for each PTV. Dose parameters of the planned target volume (PTV) and OARs were evaluated and compared, too.

Results: The mean volume of the four PTVs ranged from 2138 cc to 2433 cc. The target volumes contoured by the authors based on the recommendations of each group were similar in the pelvis, while they differed significantly in the inguinal region. There were no significant differences between the four target volumes with regard to the dose parameters of the cranially located OARs. Conversely, some dose parameters concerning the genitals and the skin varied significantly among the different guidelines.

Conclusion: The four contouring guidelines differ significantly concerning the inguinal region. In order to avoid inguinal recurrence and to protect relevant OARs, further investigations are needed to generate uniform standards for definition of the elective clinical target volume in the inguinal region.

Citing Articles

A Systematic Review of Contouring Guidelines in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of Frequency, Methodology, and Delivery of Consensus Recommendations.

Lin D, Lapen K, Sherer M, Kantor J, Zhang Z, Boyce L Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020; 107(4):827-835.

PMID: 32311418 PMC: 8262136. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.011.

References
1.
Brooks C, Hansen V, Riddell A, Harris V, Tait D . Proposed genitalia contouring guidelines in anal cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2015; 88(1051):20150032. PMC: 4628528. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150032. View

2.
Kachnic L, Winter K, Myerson R, Goodyear M, Willins J, Esthappan J . RTOG 0529: a phase 2 evaluation of dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy in combination with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin-C for the reduction of acute morbidity in carcinoma of the anal canal. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 86(1):27-33. PMC: 3619011. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.09.023. View

3.
Gay H, Barthold H, OMeara E, Bosch W, El Naqa I, Al-Lozi R . Pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines for radiation therapy: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus panel atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83(3):e353-62. PMC: 3904368. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.023. View

4.
Ng M, Leong T, Chander S, Chu J, Kneebone A, Carroll S . Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) contouring atlas and planning guidelines for intensity-modulated radiotherapy in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83(5):1455-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.058. View

5.
Gerard J, Chapet O, Samiei F, Morignat E, Isaac S, Paulin C . Management of inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with carcinoma of the anal canal: experience in a series of 270 patients treated in Lyon and review of the literature. Cancer. 2001; 92(1):77-84. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010701)92:1<77::aid-cncr1294>3.0.co;2-p. View