Aims: The International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG) defined involved-site radiotherapy (ISRT) guidelines. These rules offer a certain variability that allows for autonomous decision-making in diverse clinical settings. However, this flexibility also gives rise to conflicts about the selection of treatment fields in the daily decision-making process. The aim of this study was to show the extent of interobserver variability when ILROG-ISRT recommendations were used in different clinical scenarios. Materials and methods: The 10-question survey used in our study consisted of two parts (part A and part B) and was prepared by four senior radiation oncologists experienced in the haemato-oncology field. The results were presented by stratifying according to clinical experience (<10 years, ≥10 years). Binomial tests (one-sided) were conducted to assess whether answers for each group and the whole group reached a consensus. Results: Twenty-six radiation oncologists, 13 of whom had less than 10 years of experience and 13 seniors, participated in the survey. Eighty per cent of respondents thought ILROG did not bring sufficient solutions for all clinical scenarios but offered solutions in some cases. In different case-based scenarios, the consensus among the respondents decreased down to 38%. Senior radiation oncologists were found to have more doubts about the adequacy of current guidelines. Conclusions: ILROG guidelines allow for a high degree of variability in real-life clinical scenarios and different interpretation of the recommendations may lead to increased toxicity and recurrences. Therefore, there is a need for refinement in ISRT delineation strategies. On behalf of the Turkish Society for Radiation Oncology Hematological Oncology, Pediatric Oncology and TBI Study Group, we are planning to carry out further educational contouring sessions to detect the interobserver variability in real-life contouring cases.