Contouring consensus guidelines in breast cancer radiotherapy: Comparison and systematic review of patterns of failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adequate coverage of sites harbouring potential microscopic disease is paramount, where the clinical decision has been made to include regional lymph node radiotherapy for patients with breast cancer. This must be achieved in balance with minimising dose to normal tissues. Several international consensus guidelines detailing clinical target volumes (CTVs) are available, but there is currently no agreement as to which is most appropriate for a given clinical situation. Contouring guidelines are beneficial for routine practice and essential for clinical trial quality assurance. The aims of this study were as follows: to provide a single point of comparison of four commonly used contouring guidelines, including one used in a current Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group trial; and to undertake a systematic review of existing studies which map sites of breast cancer recurrence against contouring guidelines. Two international consensus guidelines (European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group) were compared with two clinical trial guidelines (TROG 12.02 PET LABRADOR and the Proton/Photon trial NCT02603341 RADCOMP). Comprehensive literature search for patterns of failure studies was undertaken using Embase and Pubmed. We detail the small but significant differences between the breast consensus guidelines, particularly the supraclavicular (SCF) and internal mammary chain CTVs. Seven series were found mapping recurrence patterns. These results are discussed in the context of the contouring guidelines. Several studies found the SCF CTV is the area at greatest risk of geographical 'miss'. This review will facilitate further discussion about guideline selection and modification, particularly for future clinical trials in Australia and New Zealand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".