Large topographic variability of upper abdominal lymphatics and the consequences for radiation treatment planning

ESTRO ACROP guidelines for the delineation of lymph nodal areas in upper gastrointestinal malignancies

The European SocieTy for Radiation and Oncology -Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) endorsed a project to provide guidelines (GL) for the identification and delineation of clinically negative lymph-nodal stations (LNs) involved in upper gastrointestinal clinical scenarios. The presented GL is focused on preoperative (or definitive) setting. The project aim is to improve the consistency of clinical target volume (CTV) delineation by providing: a description of the anatomical boundaries of the LNs; a radiological computed tomography-based atlas depicting the LNs areas; a free, web-based, interactive example case for independent training of radiation oncologists on LNs delineation according to the presented GL, by both qualitative and quantitative analysis (through the FALCON EduCase platform). This project was carried out with the intention to facilitate and improve uniformity of future upper gastrointestinal guidelines on nodal CTV delineation. We report methodology and results from the collaboration of a working group panel selected by the ESTRO-ACROP.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma continues to present a challenge due to a paucity of high-quality randomized studies. Administration of adjuvant chemotherapy is widely accepted due to the high risk of systemic spread associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the role of radiation therapy is less clear. This paper reviews literature associated with resectable pancreatic cancer to include prognostic factors to aid in the selection of patients appropriate for adjuvant therapies. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Inter-observer variability of clinical target volume delineation in radiotherapy treatment of pancreatic cancer: a multi-institutional contouring experience

BACKGROUND

An observational multi-institutional study has been conducted aimed to evaluate the inter-observer variability in clinical target volume (CTV) delineation among different radiation oncologists in radiotherapy treatment of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A multi-institutional contouring dummy-run of two different cases of pancreatic cancer treated by postoperative and preoperative radiotherapy (RT) was performed. Clinical history, diagnostics, and planning CT imaging were available on AIRO website (http://www.radioterapiaitalia.it). Participants were requested to delineate CTVs according to their skills and knowledge. Aiming to quantify interobserver variability of CTVs delineations, the total volume, craniocaudal, laterolateral, and anteroposterior diameters were calculated. Descriptive statistic was calculated. The 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) for coefficient of variation (CV) was estimated. The Dice Similarity Index (DSI) was used to evaluate the spatial overlap accuracy of the different CTVs compared with the CTVs of a national reference Centre considered as a benchmark. The mean DSI (mDSI) was calculated and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 18 radiation oncologists from different Institutes submitted the targets. Less variability was observed for the Elective CTV rather than the Boost CTV, in both cases. The estimated CV were 28.8% (95% CI: 21.2-45.0%) and 20.0% (95% CI: 14.9-30.6%) for the Elective CTV, in adjuvant (Case 1) and neoadjuvant (Case 2) case, respectively. The mDSI value was 0.68 for the Elective CTVs in both cases (range 0.19-0.79 in postoperative vs range 0.35-0.79 in preoperative case). The mDSI was increased to 0.71 (Case 1) and 0.72 (Case 2) if the observers with a worse agreement have been excluded. On the other hand, a CV of 42.4% (95% CI: 30.1-72.4%) and 63.8% (95% CI: 43.9-119.2%) with a mDSI value of 0.44 and 0.52, were calculated for the Boost CTV in Case 1 and Case 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CV and mDSI obtained values for Elective CTVs showed an acceptable agreement among participants either in postoperative as well in preoperative setting. Additional strategies to reduce the variability in Boost CTV delineation need to be found and promoted.

Comparison of four target volume definitions for pancreatic cancer. Guidelines for treatment of the lymphatics and the primary tumor

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.

A phase I radiation dose-escalation study to determine the maximal dose of radiotherapy in combination with weekly gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Background

The primary objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of escalating doses of radiotherapy (RT) concomitantly with a fixed dose of gemcitabine (300 mg/m²/week) within the same overall treatment time.

Methods

Thirteen patients were included. Gemcitabine 300 mg/m²/week was administered prior to RT. The initial dose of RT was 45 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions, escalated by adding 5 fractions of 1.8 Gy (one/week) to a dose of 54 Gy with a total duration kept at 5 weeks. All patients received a dynamic MRI to assess the pancreatic respiratory related movements. Toxicity was scored using the RTOG-EORTC toxicity criteria.

Results

Three of six patients experienced an acute dose limiting toxicity (DLT) at the 54 Gy dose level. For these patients a grade III gastro-intestinal toxicity (GI) was noted. Patients treated at the 45 Gy dose level tolerated therapy without DLT. The 54 Gy dose level was designated as the MTD and was deemed not suitable for further investigation.

Between both dose levels, there was a significant difference in percentage weight loss (p = 0.006) and also in cumulative GI toxicity (p = 0.027). There was no grade 3 toxicity in the 45 Gy cohort versus 4 grade 3 toxicity events in the 54 Gy cohort. The mean dose to the duodenum was significantly higher in the 54 Gy cohort (38.45 Gy vs. 51.82 Gy; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Accelerated dose escalation to a total dose of 54 Gy with 300 mg/m²/week gemcitabine was not feasible. GI toxicity was the DLT. Retrospectively, the dose escalation of 9 Gy by accelerated radiotherapy might have been to large. A dose of 45 Gy is recommended. Considering the good patient outcomes, there might be a role for the investigation of a fixed dose of gemcitabine and concurrent RT with small fractions (1.8 Gy/day) in borderline resectable or unresectable non-metastatic locally advanced pancreatic cancer.