Recently, involved-site radiation therapy (ISRT) guidelines have been developed and published to replace the previous concept of involved-field radiation therapy for patients with lymphoma. However, these ISRT guidelines may be interpreted in different ways, posing difficulties for prospective clinical trials. This study reports survey results regarding interpretation of the ISRT guidelines.Forty-four expert lymphoma radiation oncologists were asked to participate in a survey that included 7 different cases associated with 9 questions. The questions pertained to ISRT contouring and asked respondents to choose between 2 different answers (no "correct" answer) and a third write-in option allowed.Fifty-two percent of those surveyed responded to the questionnaire. Among those who responded, 72% have practiced for >10 years, 46% have treated >20 Hodgkin lymphoma cases annually, and 100% were familiar with the ISRT concept. Among the 9 questions associated with the 7 cases, 3 had concordance among the expert radiation oncologists of greater than 70%. Six of the questions had less than 70% concordance (range, 56%-67%).Even among expert radiation oncologists, interpretation of ISRT guidelines is variable. Further guidance for ISRT field design will be needed to reduce variability among practicing physicians.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.008
View details for Web of Science ID 000353988200007
View details for PubMedID 25863752