Anatomic distribution of [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose-avid lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: Current information about the anatomic distribution of lymph node (LN) metastases from cervical cancer is not precise enough for optimal treatment planning for highly conformal radiation therapy. To accurately define the anatomic distribution of these LN metastases, we mapped [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-positive LNs from 50 women with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Records of patients with cervical cancer treated from 2006 to 2010 who had pretreatment PET/computed tomography (CT) scans available were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-one consecutive patients (group 1) with FDG-avid LNs were identified; because there were few positive paraortic LNs in group 1, 9 additional patients (group 2) with positive paraortic LNs were added. Involved LNs were contoured on individual PET/CT images, mapped to a template CT scan by deformable image registration, and edited as necessary by a diagnostic radiologist and radiation oncologists to most accurately represent the location on the original PET/CT scan. RESULTS: We identified 190 FDG-avid LNs, 122 in group 1 and 68 in group 2. The highest concentrations of FDG-avid nodes were in the external iliac, common iliac, and paraortic regions. The anatomic distribution of the 122 positive LNs in group 1 was as follows: external iliac, 78 (63.9%); common iliac, 21 (17.2%); paraortic, 9 (7.4%); internal iliac, 8 (6.6%); presacral, 2 (1.6%); perirectal, 2 (1.6%); and medial inguinal, 2 (1.6%). Twelve pelvic LNs were not fully covered when the clinical target volume was defined according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group guidelines for intensity modulated radiation therapy for cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings clarify nodal volumes at risk and can be used to improve target definition in conformal radiation therapy for cervical cancer. Our findings suggest several areas that may not be adequately covered by contours described in available atlases.

Osteoradionecrosis and radiation dose to the mandible in patients with oropharyngeal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between radiation doses delivered to the mandible and the occurrence of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the records of 402 oropharyngeal cancer patients with stage T1 or T2 disease treated with definitive radiation between January 2000 and October 2008 for the occurrence of ORN. Demographic and treatment variables were compared between patients with ORN and those without. To examine the dosimetric relationship further, a nested case-control comparison was performed. One to 2 ORN-free patients were selected to match each ORN patient by age, sex, radiation type, treatment year, and cancer subsite. Detailed radiation treatment plans for the ORN cases and matched controls were reviewed. Mann-Whitney test and conditional logistic regression were used to compare relative volumes of the mandible exposed to doses ranging from 10 Gy-60 Gy in 10-Gy increments. RESULTS: In 30 patients (7.5%), ORN developed during a median follow-up time of 31 months, including 6 patients with grade 4 ORN that required major surgery. The median time to develop ORN was 8 months (range, 0-71 months). Detailed radiation treatment plans were available for 25 of the 30 ORN patients and 40 matched ORN-free patients. In the matched case-control analysis, there was a statistically significant difference between the volumes of mandible in the 2 groups receiving doses between 50 Gy (V50) and 60 Gy (V60). The most notable difference was seen at V50, with a P value of .02 in the multivariate model after adjustment for the matching variables and dental status (dentate or with extraction). CONCLUSIONS: V50 and V60 saw the most significant differences between the ORN group and the comparison group. Minimizing the percent mandibular volume exposed to 50 Gy may reduce ORN risk.

Current clinical coverage of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group-defined target volumes for postmastectomy radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) has published consensus guidelines for contouring relevant anatomy for postmastectomy radiation therapy (RT). How these contours relate to current treatment practices is unknown. We analyzed the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for these contours using current clinical practice at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and compared them with the proposed treatment plans to treat RTOG-defined targets to full dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed treatment plans for 20 consecutive women treated with postmastectomy RT for which the treatment targets were the chest wall (CW), level III axilla (Ax3), supraclavicular (SCV), and internal mammary (IM) nodes. The RTOG consensus definitions were used to contour the following anatomic structures: CW; level I, II, and III axillary nodes (Ax1, Ax2, Ax3); SCV; IM; and heart (H). DVHs for these contours and the ipsilateral lung were generated from clinically designed treatment that had actually been delivered to each patient. For comparison regarding dose to normal tissue, new treatment plans were generated with the goal of covering 95% of the anatomic contours to 45 Gy. RESULTS: The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in each case. The mean percent of volumes that received 45 Gy (V45) for the RTOG guideline-based contours were CW 74%, Ax1 84%, Ax2 88%, Ax3 96%, SCV 84%, and IM 80%. Mean heart V10 values were 11% for treatment of left-sided tumors and 6% for right-sided tumors. Mean ipsilateral lung V20 values were 28% for left-sided tumors and 34% for right-sided tumors. For the contour-based plans, mean V45 values were CW 94%, Ax1 95%, Ax2 97%, Ax3 98%, SCV 98%, and IM 85%. Mean heart V10 values were 14% for treatment of left-sided tumors and 12% for right-sided tumors. Mean ipsilateral lung V20 values were 32% for left-sided tumors and 45% for right-sided tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically derived treatment plans, which have proven efficacy and are the current standard, cover 74% to 96% of the anatomy-based RTOG consensus volumes to the prescription dose. This discrepancy should be considered if treatment planning protocol guidelines are designed to incorporate these new definitions.

Automating RTOG-defined target volumes for postmastectomy radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Consistency in defining and contouring target structures in radiation therapy (RT) is critical for highly conformal RT, for evaluating treatment plans, and for quality assurance in multi-institutional RT trials. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) has published consensus guidelines for contouring targets for postmastectomy RT. To aid in contouring such structures, we evaluated the potential use of an automated contouring technique, known as deformable image registration-based breast segmentation (DEF-SEG). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The RTOG definitions were used to contour the chest wall (CW); levels I, II, and III axillary nodes (Ax1, Ax2, Ax3); supraclavicular (SCV) nodes; internal mammary (IM) nodes; and the heart. Left-sided and right-sided templates were created. The DEF-SEG was then used to generate auto-segmented contours from the appropriate template to computed tomographic scans of 20 test cases (10 left, 10 right). To assess the accuracy of this method, those contours were manually modified as necessary to match the RTOG definitions, and the extent of the overlap was compared. The dosimetric impact of the difference in contours was then evaluated by comparing dose-volume histograms for modified and unmodified contours. RESULTS: Mean volume-overlap ratios between the unmodified DEF-SEG-generated contours and modified contours were as follows: CW, 0.91; Ax1, 0.68; Ax2, 0.64; Ax3, 0.68; SCV node, 0.66; IM node, 0.32, and the heart, 0.93. Mean differences in volume receiving 45 Gy (V45) for the modified versus unmodified contours were as follows: CW, 2.1%; SCV node, 4.8%; Ax1, 5.1%; Ax2, 5.6%; Ax3, 3.0%; and IM node, 10.1%. Mean differences in V10 between the modified heart and the unmodified heart were 0.4% for right-sided treatment and 0.5% for left-sided treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The DEF-SEG can be helpful for delineating structures according to the RTOG consensus guidelines, particularly for the CW and the heart. No clinically significant dosimetric differences were found between the modified and unmodified contours. The DEF-SEG may be useful for evaluating treatment plans for postmastectomy RT in multi-institutional trials.