Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer

Nordic anal cancer (NOAC) group consensus guidelines for risk-adapted delineation of the elective clinical target volume in anal cancer

Background: To date, anal cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy to similar volumes despite a marked difference in risk profile based on tumor location and stage. A more individualized approach to delineation of the elective clinical target volume (CTVe) could potentially provide better oncological outcomes as well as improved quality of life. The aim of the present work was to establish Nordic Anal Cancer (NOAC) group guidelines for delineation of the CTVe in anal cancer.Methods: First, 12 radiation oncologists reviewed the literature in one of the following four areas: (1) previous delineation guidelines; (2) patterns of recurrence; (3) anatomical studies; (4) common iliac and para-aortic recurrences and delineation guidelines. Second, areas of controversy were identified and discussed with the aim of reaching consensus.Results: We present consensus-based recommendations for CTVe delineation in anal cancer regarding (a) which regions to include, and (b) how the regions should be delineated. Some of our recommendations deviate from current international guidelines. For instance, the posterolateral part of the inguinal region is excluded, decreasing the volume of irradiated normal tissue. For the external iliac region and the cranial border of the CTVe, we agreed on specifying two different recommendations, both considered acceptable. One of these recommendations is novel and risk-adapted; the external iliac region is omitted for low-risk patients, and several different cranial borders are used depending on the individual level of risk.Conclusion: We present NOAC consensus guidelines for delineation of the CTVe in anal cancer, including a risk-adapted strategy.

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

PURPOSE

Clinical trials have described variation in radiation therapy plan quality, of which contour delineation is a key component, and linked this to inferior patient outcomes. In response, consensus guidelines have been developed to standardize contour delineation. This investigation assesses trends in contouring guidelines and examines the methodologies used to generate and deliver recommendations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a literature search for contouring guidelines published after 1995. Of 11,124 citations, 332 were identified for full-text review to determine inclusion. We abstracted articles for the intent of the consensus process, key elements of the methodology, and mode of information delivery. A Fisher exact test was used to identify elements that differed among the guidelines generated for clinical trials and routine care.

RESULTS

Overall, 142 guidelines were included, of which 16 (11%) were developed for a clinical trial. There was an increase in guideline publication over time (0 from 1995-1999 vs 65 from 2015- 2019; P = .03), particularly among recommendations for stereotactic radiation and brachytherapy. The most common disease sites were head and neck (24%), gastrointestinal (12%), and gynecologic (12%). Methods used to develop recommendations included literature review (50%) and image-based methods (45%). Panels included a median of 10 physicians (interquartile range, 7-16); 70% of panels represented multidisciplinary expertise. Guidelines developed for a clinical trial were more likely to include an image-based approach, with quantitative analysis of contours submitted by the panel members and to publish a full set of image-based recommendations (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights an increase in consensus contouring recommendations over time. Guidelines focus on disease sites, such as head and neck, with evidence supporting a correlation between treatment planning and patient outcomes, although variation exists in the approach to the consensus process. Elements that may improve guideline acceptance (ie, image-based consensus contour analysis) and usability (ie, inclusion of a full image set) are more common in guidelines developed for clinical trials.