UNASSIGNED: Three methods have been recently proposed for the delineation of the primary tumor clinical target volume (CTV-P) in Head and Neck Cancers: the anatomic method popularized in the French literature by Lapeyre et al. the geometric methods proposed by the DAHANCA group, and more recently the international guidelines promoted by Grégoire et al. integrating the latter two. The aim of this study was to perform a volumetric and dosimetric comparison of the French and the International consensus methods in laryngeal SCC.
UNASSIGNED: Two radiation oncologists independently delineated the high dose and low dose primary tumor CTV in four patients with T2 or T3 N0-M0 laryngeal SCC following either the so-called French guidelines or the International guidelines. For the 4 cases, the GTV was delineated by a single radiation oncologist. Nodal CTVs were delineated by one radiation oncologist for the 4 cases using International guidelines. Dose optimization was then performed with VMAT (MONACO version 5.11) using 6 MeV photons. Differences in target volumes and dose distributions in OARs and PTVs were then evaluated with various metrics such as the DICE Similarity Coefficient and the homogeneity index.
UNASSIGNED: Major differences were observed in the CTV delineation between the 2 delineation methods for the low dose volumes and to a lower extend for the high dose volumes. These differences translated into variations in dose distribution favoring the International guidelines for decreasing dose to various OARs. Such differences toned down when dose distribution on the primary tumors PTVs and nodal PTVs were combined.
UNASSIGNED: This study demonstrated large differences in CTV delineation between the 2 delineation guidelines. Such differences translated into differences in dose distribution.

OBJECTIVE: A national project to improve the quality of breast radiation therapy was started, named PROCAB (PROject on CAncer of the Breast). One of the objectives was to reach a national consensus guideline for the delineation of the regional lymph node areas in breast radiation therapy.
METHODS: The realization of the new guidelines was a step by step process that started with multiple expert meetings where the existing guidelines were analyzed and the delineations of the lymph node regions were performed together with a surgeon, specialized in the anatomy of the drainage of the breast.
RESULTS: The delineation guidelines are vessel-based. Since the occurrence of pathological lymph nodes is typically around the veins, the cranial and caudal borders of all different nodal regions are based on a 5mm margin around the veins, except for the parasternal lymph node area. Compared to the existing guidelines there are some major changes.
CONCLUSIONS: With this project a national as well as a European (ESTRO) consensus guideline for the delineation of the regional lymph node areas in breast RT is reached. The new delineation atlas is vessel-based and no longer field-based.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that delineation of swallowing organs at risk (SWOARs) based on different guidelines results in differences in dose-volume parameters and subsequent normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values for dysphagia-related endpoints.
METHODS: Nine different SWOARs were delineated according to five different delineation guidelines in 29 patients. Reference delineation was performed according to the guidelines and NTCP-models of Christianen et al. Concordance Index (CI), dosimetric consequences, as well as differences in the subsequent NTCPs were calculated.
RESULTS: The median CI of the different delineation guidelines with the reference guidelines was 0.54 for the pharyngeal constrictor muscles, 0.56 for the laryngeal structures and 0.07 for the cricopharyngeal muscle and esophageal inlet muscle. The average difference in mean dose to the SWOARs between the guidelines with the largest difference (maxΔD) was 3.5±3.2Gy. A mean ΔNTCP of 2.3±2.7% was found. For two patients, ΔNTCP exceeded 10%.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the patients showed little differences in NTCPs between the different delineation guidelines. However, large NTCP differences >10% were found in 7% of the patients. For correct use of NTCP models in individual patients, uniform delineation guidelines are of great importance.