Fulltext

The Reasons for Discrepancies in TargetVolume Delineation : A SASRO Study on Head-and-Neck and Prostate Cancers = Die Ursachen unterschiedlicher Markierung der Zielvolumina. Eine SASRO-Studie zu Prostata- und HNO-Karzinomen

Jeanneret-Sozzi, Wendy ; Moeckli, Raphaël ; Valley, Jean-François ; Zouhair, Abderrahim ; Ozsahin, Esat ; Mirimanoff, René-Olivier ; of SASRO*, on Behalf SASRO*

In: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2006, vol. 182, no. 8, p. 450-457

Ajouter à la liste personnelle
    Titre
    • The Reasons for Discrepancies in TargetVolume Delineation
      A SASRO Study on Head-and-Neck and Prostate Cancers
    Titre traduit ()
    • Die Ursachen unterschiedlicher Markierung der Zielvolumina. Eine SASRO-Studie zu Prostata- und HNO-Karzinomen
    Auteur
    • Jeanneret-Sozzi, Wendy. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Moeckli, Raphaël. University Institute of Applied Radiophysics, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Valley, Jean-François. University Institute of Applied Radiophysics, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Zouhair, Abderrahim. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Ozsahin, Esat. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • Mirimanoff, René-Olivier. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • of SASRO*, on Behalf SASRO*
    Type de document
    • Postprint
    Langue
    • Anglais
    Publié dans
    • Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2006, vol. 182, no. 8, p. 450-457. Springer Berlin Heidelberg
    Autre version électronique
    Identifiant OAI-PMH
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:311591
    Summary
    Purpose: : To understand the reasons for differences in the delineation of target volumes between physicians. Material and Methods: : 18 Swiss radiooncology centers were invited to delineate volumes for one prostate and one head-and-neck case. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to evaluate the differences in the volume definition (GTV [gross tumor volume], CTV [clinical target volume], PTV [planning target volume]), the various estimated margins, and the nodes at risk. Coherence between drawn and stated margins by centers was calculated. The questionnaire also included a nonspecific series of questions regarding planning methods in each institution. Results: : Fairly large differences in the drawn volumes were seen between the centers in both cases and also in the definition of volumes. Correlation between drawn and stated margins was fair in the prostate case and poor in the head-and-neck case. The questionnaire revealed important differences in the planning methods between centers. Conclusion: : These large differences could be explained by (1) a variable knowledge/interpretation of ICRU definitions, (2) variable interpretations of the potential microscopic extent, (3) difficulties in GTV identification, (4) differences in the concept, and (5) incoherence between theory (i.e., stated margins) and practice (i.e., drawn margins)