Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020 Aug 27
NRG Oncology Updated International Consensus Atlas on Pelvic Lymph Node Volumes for Intact and Postoperative Prostate Cancer.
ABSTRACT
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 cm, intact node positive case was 409 cm, and intact node negative case was 342 cm. 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.
Related Questions
How would treat the node? What dose?
New answer by Radiation Oncologist at National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (January 11, 2021)
Such patients are good candidates for treatment. Patients with non-regional LNs (M1a) were included on STAMPEDE. In the M1a subgroup analysis presented at ESMO 2019, there was...
Do you contour to include S3 or up to the piriformis muscle?
New answer by Radiation Oncologist at National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (April 15, 2021)
This is an interesting question. There is some heterogeneity between cooperative groups in their recommendations for pre-sacral nodal coverage. For example, while the RTOG and...
Is inclusion up to the bifurcation worth the bowel dose? Or are you contouring up to the L5/S1 interspace?
New comment by Radiation Oncologist at Varian Medical Systems/Allegheny health network ( May 9, 2021)
We treat based on common iliac location rather than bony landmark.
What volumes would you encompass? Anything different than standard nodal basins for high risk prostate cancer?
New answer by Radiation Oncologist at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (October 12, 2023)
I would cover the entire mesorectum coplanar with and 2 cm superior and inferior to a PSMA-avid perirectal lymph node. I have seen perirectal lymph nodes not only posterior to...