Grégoire Vincent, Ang Kian, Budach Wilfried, Grau Cai, Hamoir Marc, Langendijk Johannes A, Lee Anne, Le Quynh-Thu, Maingon Philippe, Nutting Chris, O'Sullivan Brian, Porceddu Sandro V, Lengele Benoit
Cancer Center and Department of Radiation Oncology, Clinical and Experimental Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jan;110(1):172-81. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.10.010. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
In 2003, a panel of experts published a set of consensus guidelines for the delineation of the neck node levels in node negative patients (Radiother Oncol, 69: 227-36, 2003). In 2006, these guidelines were extended to include the characteristics of the node positive and the post-operative neck (Radiother Oncol, 79: 15-20, 2006). These guidelines did not fully address all nodal regions and some of the anatomic descriptions were ambiguous, thereby limiting consistent use of the recommendations. In this framework, a task force comprising opinion leaders in the field of head and neck radiation oncology from European, Asian, Australia/New Zealand and North American clinical research organizations was formed to review and update the previously published guidelines on nodal level delineation. Based on the nomenclature proposed by the American Head and Neck Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and in alignment with the TNM atlas for lymph nodes in the neck, 10 node groups (some being divided into several levels) were defined with a concise description of their main anatomic boundaries, the normal structures juxtaposed to these nodes, and the main tumor sites at risk for harboring metastases in those levels. Emphasis was placed on those levels not adequately considered previously (or not addressed at all); these included the lower neck (e.g. supraclavicular nodes), the scalp (e.g. retroauricular and occipital nodes), and the face (e.g. buccal and parotid nodes). Lastly, peculiarities pertaining to the node-positive and the post-operative clinical scenarios were also discussed. In conclusion, implementation of these guidelines in the daily practice of radiation oncology should contribute to the reduction of treatment variations from clinician to clinician and facilitate the conduct of multi-institutional clinical trials.
2003年,一个专家小组发表了一套针对淋巴结阴性患者颈部淋巴结分区的共识指南(《放射肿瘤学》,2003年,第69卷:227 - 236页)。2006年,这些指南得到扩展,纳入了淋巴结阳性及术后颈部的特征(《放射肿瘤学》,2006年,第79卷:15 - 20页)。这些指南并未完全涵盖所有淋巴结区域,且部分解剖描述含糊不清,从而限制了这些建议的一致应用。在此框架下,由欧洲、亚洲、澳大利亚/新西兰以及北美临床研究机构的头颈放射肿瘤学领域意见领袖组成的特别工作组成立,以审查和更新先前发布的淋巴结分区指南。基于美国头颈协会和美国耳鼻咽喉 - 头颈外科学会提出的命名法,并与颈部淋巴结的TNM图谱保持一致,定义了10个淋巴结组(有些被分为几个层面),并对其主要解剖边界、与这些淋巴结相邻的正常结构以及这些层面中存在转移风险的主要肿瘤部位进行了简要描述。重点关注了先前未得到充分考虑(或根本未涉及)的层面;这些层面包括下颈部(如锁骨上淋巴结)、头皮(如耳后和枕部淋巴结)以及面部(如颊部和腮腺淋巴结)。最后,还讨论了与淋巴结阳性和术后临床情况相关的特殊之处。总之,在放射肿瘤学的日常实践中实施这些指南应有助于减少临床医生之间的治疗差异,并促进多机构临床试验的开展。