PURPOSE: To determine whether cine computed tomography (CT) can serve as an alternative to four-dimensional (4D)-CT by providing tumor motion information and producing equivalent target volumes when used to contour in radiotherapy planning without a respiratory surrogate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cine CT images from a commercial CT scanner were used to form maximum intensity projection and respiratory-averaged CT image sets. These image sets then were used together to define the targets for radiotherapy. Phantoms oscillating under irregular motion were used to assess the differences between contouring using cine CT and 4D-CT. We also retrospectively reviewed the image sets for 26 patients (27 lesions) at our institution who had undergone stereotactic radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. The patients were included if the tumor motion was >1 cm. The lesions were first contoured using maximum intensity projection and respiratory-averaged CT image sets processed from cine CT and then with 4D-CT maximum intensity projection and 10-phase image sets. The mean ratios of the volume magnitude were compared with intraobserver variation, the mean centroid shifts were calculated, and the volume overlap was assessed with the normalized Dice similarity coefficient index. RESULTS: The phantom studies demonstrated that cine CT captured a greater extent of irregular tumor motion than did 4D-CT, producing a larger tumor volume. The patient studies demonstrated that the gross tumor defined using cine CT imaging was similar to, or slightly larger than, that defined using 4D-CT. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that cine CT is a promising alternative to 4D-CT for stereotactic radiotherapy planning.
PURPOSE: To determine whether cine computed tomography (CT) can serve as an alternative to four-dimensional (4D)-CT by providing tumor motion information and producing equivalent target volumes when used to contour in radiotherapy planning without a respiratory surrogate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cine CT images from a commercial CT scanner were used to form maximum intensity projection and respiratory-averaged CT image sets. These image sets then were used together to define the targets for radiotherapy. Phantoms oscillating under irregular motion were used to assess the differences between contouring using cine CT and 4D-CT. We also retrospectively reviewed the image sets for 26 patients (27 lesions) at our institution who had undergone stereotactic radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. The patients were included if the tumor motion was >1 cm. The lesions were first contoured using maximum intensity projection and respiratory-averaged CT image sets processed from cine CT and then with 4D-CT maximum intensity projection and 10-phase image sets. The mean ratios of the volume magnitude were compared with intraobserver variation, the mean centroid shifts were calculated, and the volume overlap was assessed with the normalized Dice similarity coefficient index. RESULTS: The phantom studies demonstrated that cine CT captured a greater extent of irregular tumor motion than did 4D-CT, producing a larger tumor volume. The patient studies demonstrated that the gross tumor defined using cine CT imaging was similar to, or slightly larger than, that defined using 4D-CT. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that cine CT is a promising alternative to 4D-CT for stereotactic radiotherapy planning.
Authors: U Nestle; K Walter; S Schmidt; N Licht; C Nieder; B Motaref; D Hellwig; M Niewald; D Ukena; C M Kirsch; G W Sybrecht; K Schnabel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P J Keall; G Starkschall; H Shukla; K M Forster; V Ortiz; C W Stevens; S S Vedam; R George; T Guerrero; R Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2004-05-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Brigitta G Baumert; Geert Bosmans; Marinus van Kroonenburgh; Sigrid Stroobants; Vincent Gregoire; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: David A Zamora; Adam C Riegel; Xiaojun Sun; Peter Balter; George Starkschall; Osama Mawlawi; Tinsu Pan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kujtim Latifi; Kenneth M Forster; Sarah E Hoffe; Thomas J Dilling; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Geoffrey G Zhang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Coen W Hurkmans; Johan P Cuijpers; Frank J Lagerwaard; Joachim Widder; Uulke A van der Heide; Danny Schuring; Suresh Senan Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Adam C Riegel; M Kara Bucci; Osama R Mawlawi; Moiz Ahmad; Dershan Luo; Adam Chandler; Tinsu Pan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 2.102