PMID- 23553047
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20130610
LR  - 20211021
IS  - 1439-099X (Electronic)
IS  - 0179-7158 (Linking)
VI  - 189
IP  - 5
DP  - 2013 May
TI  - Comparison of four target volume definitions for pancreatic cancer. Guidelines 
      for treatment of the lymphatics and the primary tumor.
PG  - 407-16
LID - 10.1007/s00066-013-0332-3 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Target volume definitions for radiotherapy in pancreatic 
      ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) vary substantially. Some groups aim to treat the 
      primary tumor only, whereas others include elective lymph nodes (eLNs). eLNs 
      close to the primary tumor are often included unintentionally within the 
      treatment volume, depending on the respective treatment philosophies. We aimed to 
      measure the percentages of anatomical coverage of eLNs by comparing four 
      different contouring guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Planning target volumes 
      (PTVs) were contoured using planning computed tomography (CT) scans of 
      11 patients with PDAC based on the Oxford, RTOG (Radiation Therapy Oncology 
      Group), Michigan, and SCALOP (Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised 
      Pancreatic Cancer trial) guidelines. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) included the 
      peripancreatic, para-aortic, paracaval, celiac trunk, superior mesenteric, and 
      portal vein lymph node areas. Volumetric comparisons of the coverage of all eLN 
      regions were conducted to illustrate the differences between the four contouring 
      strategies. RESULTS: The PTV sizes of the RTOG and Oxford guidelines were 
      comparable. The SCALOP and Michigan PTV sizes were similar to each other and 
      significantly smaller than the RTOG and Oxford PTVs. A large variability of eLN 
      coverage was found for the various subregions according to the respective 
      contouring strategies. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to directly compare 
      the percentage of anatomical coverage of eLNs according to four PTVs in the same 
      patient cohort. Potential practical consequences are discussed in detail.
FAU - Fokas, E
AU  - Fokas E
AD  - Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, Department of Oncology, Oxford 
      Cancer Centre, University of Oxford.
FAU - Eccles, C
AU  - Eccles C
FAU - Patel, N
AU  - Patel N
FAU - Chu, K-Y
AU  - Chu KY
FAU - Warren, S
AU  - Warren S
FAU - Gillies McKenna, W
AU  - Gillies McKenna W
FAU - Brunner, T B
AU  - Brunner TB
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20130405
PL  - Germany
TA  - Strahlenther Onkol
JT  - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et 
      al]
JID - 8603469
SB  - IM
MH  - Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/*diagnosis/*radiotherapy/secondary
MH  - Germany
MH  - Humans
MH  - Imaging, Three-Dimensional/*standards
MH  - Lymphatic Metastasis
MH  - Pancreatic Neoplasms/*diagnostic imaging/*radiotherapy
MH  - *Practice Guidelines as Topic
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Tomography, X-Ray Computed/*standards
MH  - Tumor Burden
EDAT- 2013/04/05 06:00
MHDA- 2013/06/12 06:00
CRDT- 2013/04/05 06:00
PHST- 2012/12/19 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2013/02/13 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2013/04/05 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2013/04/05 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2013/06/12 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1007/s00066-013-0332-3 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Strahlenther Onkol. 2013 May;189(5):407-16. doi: 10.1007/s00066-013-0332-3. Epub 
      2013 Apr 5.