PURPOSE: To compare tumor volume delineation using registered positron emission tomography (PET)/CT vs. side-by-side image sets. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 19 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer had 18-fluorine-deoxyglucose (FDG)-PET scans registered with planning CT scans. The disease was Stage I-II in 26%, IIIA in 42%, and IIIB in 32%. Two radiation oncologists contoured 9 tumor volumes using registered images (registered) and 10 using separate FDG-PET images as a guide (nonregistered). A third physician, who had done the treatment planning for these patients a median of 40 months before using registered images, repeated all contours: 10 on registered images (registered/registered) and 9 without registration (registered/nonregistered). Each pair of volumes (A and B) was compared. Quantitative comparison used the concordance index, (A intersection B)/(A union or logical sum B). For qualitative analysis, pairs of volumes were projected onto digitally reconstructed radiographs. The differences were graded as insignificant, minor, moderate, or major. RESULTS: The median interobserver percentage of concordance among nonregistered pairs was 61% vs. 70% in the registered group (p <0.05). On qualitative analysis, in the nonregistered group, the differences were insignificant in 5, minor in 3, and moderate in 2 of 10. The differences in the registered group were insignificant in 7 and minor in 2 of 9. The median intraobserver percentage of concordance in the registered/nonregistered group was 58% vs. 71% in the registered/registered group (p = 0.10). On qualitative analysis, the intraobserver differences in the registered/nonregistered group were insignificant in 2, minor in 2, moderate in 0, and major in 5 of 9. In the registered/registered group, the differences were insignificant in 2, minor in 6, moderate in 2, and major in 0 of 10. CONCLUSION: Registration of FDG-PET and planning CT images results in greater consistency in tumor volume delineation.
PURPOSE: To compare tumor volume delineation using registered positron emission tomography (PET)/CT vs. side-by-side image sets. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 19 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer had 18-fluorine-deoxyglucose (FDG)-PET scans registered with planning CT scans. The disease was Stage I-II in 26%, IIIA in 42%, and IIIB in 32%. Two radiation oncologists contoured 9 tumor volumes using registered images (registered) and 10 using separate FDG-PET images as a guide (nonregistered). A third physician, who had done the treatment planning for these patients a median of 40 months before using registered images, repeated all contours: 10 on registered images (registered/registered) and 9 without registration (registered/nonregistered). Each pair of volumes (A and B) was compared. Quantitative comparison used the concordance index, (A intersection B)/(A union or logical sum B). For qualitative analysis, pairs of volumes were projected onto digitally reconstructed radiographs. The differences were graded as insignificant, minor, moderate, or major. RESULTS: The median interobserver percentage of concordance among nonregistered pairs was 61% vs. 70% in the registered group (p <0.05). On qualitative analysis, in the nonregistered group, the differences were insignificant in 5, minor in 3, and moderate in 2 of 10. The differences in the registered group were insignificant in 7 and minor in 2 of 9. The median intraobserver percentage of concordance in the registered/nonregistered group was 58% vs. 71% in the registered/registered group (p = 0.10). On qualitative analysis, the intraobserver differences in the registered/nonregistered group were insignificant in 2, minor in 2, moderate in 0, and major in 5 of 9. In the registered/registered group, the differences were insignificant in 2, minor in 6, moderate in 2, and major in 0 of 10. CONCLUSION: Registration of FDG-PET and planning CT images results in greater consistency in tumor volume delineation.
Authors: Matthew J Nyflot; Tzu-Cheng Lee; Adam M Alessio; Scott D Wollenweber; Charles W Stearns; Stephen R Bowen; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M Mukesh; R Benson; R Jena; A Hoole; T Roques; C Scrase; C Martin; G A Whitfield; J Gemmill; S Jefferies Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.039