PURPOSE: To assess the pattern of local failure using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) scans after radiotherapy (RT) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with definitive RT whose gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were defined with the aid of pre-RT PET data. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The data from 26 patients treated with involved-field RT who had local failure and a post-RT PET scan were analyzed. The patterns of failure were visually scored and defined as follows: (1) within the GTV/planning target volume (PTV); (2) within the GTV, PTV, and outward; (3) within the PTV and outward; and (4) outside the PTV. Local failure was also evaluated as originating from nodal areas vs. the primary tumor. RESULTS: We analyzed 34 lesions. All 26 patients had recurrence originating from their primary tumor. Of the 34 lesions, 8 (24%) were in nodal areas, 5 of which (63%) were marginal or geographic misses compared with only 1 (4%) of the 26 primary recurrences (p = 0.001). Of the eight primary tumors that had received a dose of <60 Gy, six (75%) had failure within the GTV and two (25%) at the GTV margin. At doses of > or = 60 Gy, 6 (33%) of 18 had failure within the GTV and 11 (61%) at the GTV margin, and 1 (6%) was a marginal miss (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: At lower doses, the pattern of recurrences was mostly within the GTV, suggesting that the dose might have been a factor for tumor control. At greater doses, the treatment failures were mostly at the margin of the GTV. This suggests that visual incorporation of PET data for GTV delineation might be inadequate, and more sophisticated approaches of PET registration should be evaluated.
PURPOSE: To assess the pattern of local failure using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) scans after radiotherapy (RT) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with definitive RT whose gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were defined with the aid of pre-RT PET data. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The data from 26 patients treated with involved-field RT who had local failure and a post-RT PET scan were analyzed. The patterns of failure were visually scored and defined as follows: (1) within the GTV/planning target volume (PTV); (2) within the GTV, PTV, and outward; (3) within the PTV and outward; and (4) outside the PTV. Local failure was also evaluated as originating from nodal areas vs. the primary tumor. RESULTS: We analyzed 34 lesions. All 26 patients had recurrence originating from their primary tumor. Of the 34 lesions, 8 (24%) were in nodal areas, 5 of which (63%) were marginal or geographic misses compared with only 1 (4%) of the 26 primary recurrences (p = 0.001). Of the eight primary tumors that had received a dose of <60 Gy, six (75%) had failure within the GTV and two (25%) at the GTV margin. At doses of > or = 60 Gy, 6 (33%) of 18 had failure within the GTV and 11 (61%) at the GTV margin, and 1 (6%) was a marginal miss (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: At lower doses, the pattern of recurrences was mostly within the GTV, suggesting that the dose might have been a factor for tumor control. At greater doses, the treatment failures were mostly at the margin of the GTV. This suggests that visual incorporation of PET data for GTV delineation might be inadequate, and more sophisticated approaches of PET registration should be evaluated.
Authors: M P Mac Manus; R J Hicks; D L Ball; V Kalff; J P Matthews; E Salminen; P Khaw; A Wirth; D Rischin; A McKenzie Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: K E Rosenzweig; S E Sim; B Mychalczak; L E Braban; R Schindelheim; S A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C W Stevens; R F Munden; K M Forster; J F Kelly; Z Liao; G Starkschall; S Tucker; R Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael P Mac Manus; Rodney J Hicks; Jane P Matthews; Allan McKenzie; Danny Rischin; Eeva K Salminen; David L Ball Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L J Vanuytsel; J F Vansteenkiste; S G Stroobants; P R De Leyn; W De Wever; E K Verbeken; G G Gatti; D P Huyskens; G J Kutcher Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Katherine Mah; Curtis B Caldwell; Yee C Ung; Cyril E Danjoux; Judith M Balogh; S Nimu Ganguli; Lisa E Ehrlich; Romeo Tirona Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yusuf E Erdi; Kenneth Rosenzweig; Alev K Erdi; Homer A Macapinlac; Yu Chi Hu; Louise E Braban; John L Humm; Olivia D Squire; Chen Shou Chui; Steven M Larson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Boda-Heggemann; M Guckenberger; U Ganswindt; C Belka; H Wertz; M Blessing; F Wenz; M Fuss; F Lohr Journal: Radiologe Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: C Doll; V Duncker-Rohr; G Rücker; M Mix; M MacManus; D De Ruysscher; W Vogel; J G Eriksen; W Oyen; A-L Grosu; W Weber; U Nestle Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Guido Lammering; Dirk De Ruysscher; Angela van Baardwijk; Brigitta G Baumert; Jacques Borger; Ludy Lutgens; Piet van den Ende; Michel Ollers; Philippe Lambin Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Radovan Vojtíšek; Jan Mužík; Pavel Slampa; Marie Budíková; Jaroslav Hejsek; Petr Smolák; Jiří Ferda; Jindřich Fínek Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2013-10-17