[en] Purpose. To estimate the doses of incidental irradiation in particular lymph node stations (LNS) in different extents of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods. Doses of radiotherapy were estimated for particular LNS delineated according to the recommendations of the Univ. of Michigan in 220 patients treated using 3D-CRT with different (extended, limited and omitted) extents of ENI. Minimum doses and volumes of LNS receiving 40 Gy or more (V40) were compared for omitted vs. limited+extended ENI and limited vs. extended ENI. Results. For omission of the ENI the minimum doses and V40 for particular LNS were significantly lower than for patients treated with ENI. For the limited ENI group, the minimum doses for LNS 5, 6 lower parts of 3A and 3P (not included in the elective area) did not differ significantly from doses given to respective LNS for extended ENI group. When the V40 values for extended and limited ENI were compared, no significant differences were seen for any LNS, except for group 1/2R, 1/2L. Conclusions. Incidental irradiation of untreated LNS seems play a part in case of limited ENI, but not in cases without ENI. For subclinical disease the delineation of uninvolved LNS 5, 6, and lower parts of 3A, 3P may be not necessary, because these stations receive the substantial part of irradiation incidentally, if LNS 4R, 4L, 7, and ipsilateral hilum are included in the elective area while this is not case for stations 1 and 2

[en] Purpose: To assess the variability among clinicians in the delineation of mediastinal and hilar lymph node stations (LNS) according to the published recommendations in the treatment planning of elective nodal irradiation for lung cancer. Methods: Nine observers delineated on axial CT scans of five cases the LNS according to the guidelines of the published Atlas. Next, the Volumes of Consensus (VC) - fitting strictly the guidelines - for each LNS and case were collectively defined. Volume of Intersection (VI) as the overlap of the Delineated Volume (DV) for each LNS, case and observer with respective VC was computed. The Concordance Index (CI) for respective LNS and observers was defined as 'VI/VC x 100%'. The Discordance Index (DI) for respective LNS and observers was defined as '(1 - VI/VD) x 100%'. Results: Mean values of CI and DI for all observers were 69% and 36%, respectively. For five radiation oncologists who used to work as a team the ways of delineation were similar. The poorest reproducibility was shown for LNS 5, 7, 10R, and 10L. Conclusions: Although detailed guidelines are used there is still substantial room for improvement. More training in the use of the Atlas is recommended