Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Defining Intraprostatic Gross Tumor Volume and Micro-boosting through Consensus: A Contour-Based Modified Delphi
Lucas C Mendez1, Costas Zamboglou2, Shafak Al-Uwini3
1London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, Canada.
Purpose:
Advances in imaging have enabled identification of intraprostatic GTVs, creating opportunities for micro-boosting in prostate radiotherapy. However, variability exists in patient selection, target delineation, and treatment planning. This study aimed to characterize expert contouring variability and establish consensus guidance for GTV micro-boosting using a contour-based modified Delphi consensus.
Methods:
International radiation oncologists with expertise in GTV micro-boosting participated in a two-part study comprising a contouring exercise and a two-round modified Delphi consensus. Participants contoured GTVs on two prostate cancer cases with mpMRI and PSMA-PET imaging, including one complex case with imaging discordance. Contouring agreement was assessed using Fleiss' kappa, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and STAPLE analysis. Subsequently, participants completed iterative Delphi surveys addressing patient selection, imaging requirements, contouring practices, and treatment planning. Consensus and strong consensus were predefined as ≥75% and ≥90% agreement, respectively.
Results:
Fifteen of 20 invited experts completed the study. Contouring agreement was high in the simpler case but substantially lower in the complex case. PSMA-PET-based GTVs were consistently larger than mpMRI-based GTVs. Overall, consensus or strong consensus was achieved for 43 of 131 statements (33%). Agreement was reached on key aspects of GTV delineation, including use of combined T2 and DWI/ADC sequences on mpMRI, eligibility of PI-RADS 4-5 and PROMISE 4-5 lesions for boosting, preferred use of PSMA-targeted tracers, and avoidance of CTV margins when PET and MRI information are used in combination. No consensus was achieved on SBRT micro-boosting outside clinical trials, margin expansion using single-modality imaging, or optimal dose prescriptions to the GTV or uninvolved prostate.
Conclusion:
This contour-based modified Delphi study demonstrates variability in GTVs delineation for complex cases and identifies areas of expert consensus that can inform standardized implementation of prostate GTVs micro-boosting.
