Recommendations for stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine and non-spine bone metastases. A GETUG (French society of urological radiation oncolgists) consensus using a national two-round modified Delphi survey
© 2022 The Authors..
Background and purpose: The relevance of metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) remains to be demonstrated through phase III trials. Multiple SBRT procedures have been published potentially resulting in a disparity of practices. Therefore, the french society of urological radiation oncolgists (GETUG) recognized the need for joint expert consensus guidelines for metastasis-directed SBRT in order to standardize practice in trials carried out by the group.
Materials and methods: After a comprehensive literature review, 97 recommendation statements were created regarding planning and delivery of spine bone (SBM) and non-spine bone metastases (NSBM) SBRT. These statements were then submitted to a national online two-round modified Delphi survey among main GETUG investigators. Consensus was achieved if a statement received ≥ 75 % agreements, a trend to consensus being defined as 65-74 % agreements. Any statement without consensus at round one was re-submitted in round two.
Results: Twenty-one out of 29 (72.4%) surveyed experts responded to both rounds. Seventy-five statements achieved consensus at round one leaving 22 statements needing a revote of which 16 achieved consensus and 5 a trend to consensus. The final rate of consensus was 91/97 (93.8%). Statements with no consensus concerned patient selection (3/19), dose and fractionation (1/11), prescription and dose objectives (1/9) and organs at risk delineation (1/15). The voting resulted in the writing of step-by-step consensus guidelines.
Conclusion: Consensus guidelines for SBM and NSBM SBRT were agreed upon using a validated modified Delphi approach. These guidelines will be used as per-protocole recommendations in ongoing and further GETUG clinical trials.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:37 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Clinical and translational radiation oncology - 37(2022) vom: 16. Nov., Seite 33-40 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Vilotte, F [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Journal Article |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 05.11.2023 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.006 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM345692861 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM345692861 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226025642.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.006 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1152.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM345692861 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36052019 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Vilotte, F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Recommendations for stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine and non-spine bone metastases. A GETUG (French society of urological radiation oncolgists) consensus using a national two-round modified Delphi survey |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 05.11.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2022 The Authors. | ||
| 520 | |a Background and purpose: The relevance of metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) remains to be demonstrated through phase III trials. Multiple SBRT procedures have been published potentially resulting in a disparity of practices. Therefore, the french society of urological radiation oncolgists (GETUG) recognized the need for joint expert consensus guidelines for metastasis-directed SBRT in order to standardize practice in trials carried out by the group | ||
| 520 | |a Materials and methods: After a comprehensive literature review, 97 recommendation statements were created regarding planning and delivery of spine bone (SBM) and non-spine bone metastases (NSBM) SBRT. These statements were then submitted to a national online two-round modified Delphi survey among main GETUG investigators. Consensus was achieved if a statement received ≥ 75 % agreements, a trend to consensus being defined as 65-74 % agreements. Any statement without consensus at round one was re-submitted in round two | ||
| 520 | |a Results: Twenty-one out of 29 (72.4%) surveyed experts responded to both rounds. Seventy-five statements achieved consensus at round one leaving 22 statements needing a revote of which 16 achieved consensus and 5 a trend to consensus. The final rate of consensus was 91/97 (93.8%). Statements with no consensus concerned patient selection (3/19), dose and fractionation (1/11), prescription and dose objectives (1/9) and organs at risk delineation (1/15). The voting resulted in the writing of step-by-step consensus guidelines | ||
| 520 | |a Conclusion: Consensus guidelines for SBM and NSBM SBRT were agreed upon using a validated modified Delphi approach. These guidelines will be used as per-protocole recommendations in ongoing and further GETUG clinical trials | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Metastasis-directed | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Non-spine bone metastasis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Oligometastatic | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Spine bone metastasis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Stereotactic radiation therapy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Stereotaxy | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pasquier, D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Blanchard, P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Supiot, S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Khalifa, J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schick, U |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lacornerie, T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vieillevigne, L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Marre, D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chapet, O |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Latorzeff, I |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Magne, N |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Meyer, E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cao, K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Belkacemi, Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bibault, J E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Berge-Lefranc, M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Faivre, J C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gnep, K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Guimas, V |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hasbini, A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Langrand-Escure, J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hennequin, C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Graff, P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical and translational radiation oncology |d 2016 |g 37(2022) vom: 16. Nov., Seite 33-40 |w (DE-627)NLM280595387 |x 2405-6308 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:37 |g year:2022 |g day:16 |g month:11 |g pages:33-40 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2022.08.006 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 37 |j 2022 |b 16 |c 11 |h 33-40 | ||