PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to assess the contribution of (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) positron emission tomography (PET) in the delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV) in patients with high-grade gliomas compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 18 patients with high-grade gliomas. Seven image segmentation techniques were used to delineate (18)F-FET PET GTVs, and the results were compared to the manual MRI-derived GTV (GTV(MRI)). PET image segmentation techniques included manual delineation of contours (GTV(man)), a 2.5 standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoff (GTV(2.5)), a fixed threshold of 40% and 50% of the maximum signal intensity (GTV(40%) and GTV(50%)), signal-to-background ratio (SBR)-based adaptive thresholding (GTV(SBR)), gradient find (GTV(GF)), and region growing (GTV(RG)). Overlap analysis was also conducted to assess geographic mismatch between the GTVs delineated using the different techniques. RESULTS: Contours defined using GTV(2.5) failed to provide successful delineation technically in three patients (18% of cases) as SUV(max) < 2.5 and clinically in 14 patients (78% of cases). Overall, the majority of GTVs defined on PET-based techniques were usually smaller than GTV(MRI) (67% of cases). Yet, PET detected frequently tumors that are not visible on MRI and added substantially tumor extension outside the GTV(MRI) in six patients (33% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: The selection of the most appropriate (18)F-FET PET-based segmentation algorithm is crucial, since it impacts both the volume and shape of the resulting GTV. The 2.5 SUV isocontour and GF segmentation techniques performed poorly and should not be used for GTV delineation. With adequate setting, the SBR-based PET technique may add considerably to conventional MRI-guided GTV delineation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to assess the contribution of (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) positron emission tomography (PET) in the delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV) in patients with high-grade gliomas compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 18 patients with high-grade gliomas. Seven image segmentation techniques were used to delineate (18)F-FET PET GTVs, and the results were compared to the manual MRI-derived GTV (GTV(MRI)). PET image segmentation techniques included manual delineation of contours (GTV(man)), a 2.5 standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoff (GTV(2.5)), a fixed threshold of 40% and 50% of the maximum signal intensity (GTV(40%) and GTV(50%)), signal-to-background ratio (SBR)-based adaptive thresholding (GTV(SBR)), gradient find (GTV(GF)), and region growing (GTV(RG)). Overlap analysis was also conducted to assess geographic mismatch between the GTVs delineated using the different techniques. RESULTS: Contours defined using GTV(2.5) failed to provide successful delineation technically in three patients (18% of cases) as SUV(max) < 2.5 and clinically in 14 patients (78% of cases). Overall, the majority of GTVs defined on PET-based techniques were usually smaller than GTV(MRI) (67% of cases). Yet, PET detected frequently tumors that are not visible on MRI and added substantially tumor extension outside the GTV(MRI) in six patients (33% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: The selection of the most appropriate (18)F-FET PET-based segmentation algorithm is crucial, since it impacts both the volume and shape of the resulting GTV. The 2.5 SUV isocontour and GF segmentation techniques performed poorly and should not be used for GTV delineation. With adequate setting, the SBR-based PET technique may add considerably to conventional MRI-guided GTV delineation.
Authors: Walter Jentzen; Lutz Freudenberg; Ernst G Eising; Melanie Heinze; Wolfgang Brandau; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Brian Yaremko; Terence Riauka; Don Robinson; Brad Murray; Abraham Alexander; Alexander McEwan; Wilson Roa Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-12-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: G Pöpperl; R Goldbrunner; F J Gildehaus; F W Kreth; P Tanner; M Holtmannspötter; J C Tonn; K Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-05-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J H Mehrkens; G Pöpperl; W Rachinger; J Herms; K Seelos; K Tatsch; J C Tonn; F W Kreth Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Vera Graute; Lena Armbruster; Bogdana Suchorska; Juergen Lutz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tony Shepherd; Mika Teras; Reinhard R Beichel; Ronald Boellaard; Michel Bruynooghe; Volker Dicken; Mark J Gooding; Peter J Julyan; John A Lee; Sébastien Lefèvre; Michael Mix; Valery Naranjo; Xiaodong Wu; Habib Zaidi; Ziming Zeng; Heikki Minn Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Isabel Winkelmann; Bogdana Suchorska; Vera Wenter; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Erik Mille; Andrei Todica; Matthias Brendel; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Peter Bartenstein; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Marc D Piroth; Michael Pinkawa; Richard Holy; Gabriele Stoffels; Cengiz Demirel; Charbel Attieh; Hans J Kaiser; Karl J Langen; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 3.481