Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32861817›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2021

NRG Oncology Updated International Consensus Atlas on Pelvic Lymph Node Volumes for Intact and Postoperative Prostate Cancer.

William A Hall, Eric Paulson, Brian J Davis, Daniel E Spratt, Todd M Morgan, David Dearnaley, Alison C Tree, Jason A Efstathiou, Mukesh Harisinghani, Ashesh B Jani and 15 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05820633 (Pelvic Nodes Ultra-Hypo Fractionated Versus Conventionally Fractionated IMRT With HDR Brachytherapy Boost in Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05820633 nasuspendednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Pelvic Nodes Ultra-Hypo Fractionated Versus Conventionally Fractionated IMRT With HDR Brachytherapy Boost in Prostate Cancer: A Collaborative Multi-institutional Non-inferiority Phase 3 Trial. (PCS-XI)

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHU de Quebec-Universite LavalRan2022 to 2035Enrolled500ConditionsProstate Cancer, Node, Prostate, Radiotherapy Side EffectArmsReport and compare changes in a non-inferiority analysis of the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), Report and compare changes in a non-inferiority analysis of the expanded prostate cancer index composite" (EPIC-26):, Report and compare changes in a non-inferiority analysis of the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Report and compare changes in a non-inferiority analysis of the toxicities reported according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Report and compare the biochemical disease free survival (bDFS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Randomized Trial of Conventional Versus Conventional Plus Fluciclovine (International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patterns of failure withCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Article
  20. Protocol-based CT-guided brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer and previous rectal extirpation-a curative approach.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

William A HallMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Electronic address: whall@mcw.edu.
Eric PaulsonMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Brian J DavisMayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Daniel E SprattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Todd M MorganDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
David DearnaleyThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Alison C TreeThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Jason A EfstathiouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mukesh HarisinghaniDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ashesh B JaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Mark K BuyyounouskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Thomas M PisanskyMayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Phuoc T TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland.
R Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ronald C ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas.
Fabio L CuryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Jeff M MichalskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Seth A RosenthalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sutter Medical Group, Roseville, California.
Bridget F KoontzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Anthony C WongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Paul L NguyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Thomas A HopeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Felix FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Howard M SandlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Colleen A F LawtonMedical College of Wisconsin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
Statistics CoreU10CA180822 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Elaina Harper · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY / SITEMAN CANCER CENTER LEAD ACADEMIC SITEUG1CA233339 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI NANCY L BARTLETT, Clifford Grant Robinson · 2019 to 2026
$11.3M
UNC Lead Academic Participating SiteUG1CA233373 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CAREY, LISA A, DEES, ELIZABETH CLAIRE · 2019 to 2025
$3.5M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR001438 · NCATS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI WIDLANSKY, MICHAEL E · 2015 to 2024
$2.9M
Cancer Research UK 12518Cancer Research UK 19727Cancer Research UK 28284Department of HealthNCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001438NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233339NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity.

resultsEighteen radiation oncologists' contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists' volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm

conclusionsDiscordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed.

Indexed as

InternationalityPelvisHumansLymph NodesMaleOncologistsOrgan SizeProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32861817
PMCPMC7736505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.