BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the consequences of target volume (TV) modifications, based on the additional use of PET information, on radiation planning, assuming PET/CT-imaging represents the true extent of the tumour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 21 patients with esophageal cancer, two separate TV's were retrospectively defined based on CT (CT-TV) and co-registered PET/CT images (PET/CT-TV). Two 3D-CRT plans (prescribed dose 50.4 Gy) were constructed to cover the corresponding TV's. Subsequently, these plans were compared for target coverage, normal tissue dose-volume histograms and the corresponding normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values. RESULTS: The addition of PET led to the modification of CT-TV with at least 10% in 12 of 21 patients (57%) (reduction in 9, enlargement in 3). PET/CT-TV was inadequately covered by the CT-based treatment plan in 8 patients (36%). Treatment plan modifications resulted in significant changes (p<0.05) in dose distributions to heart and lungs. Corresponding changes in NTCP values ranged from -3% to +2% for radiation pneumonitis and from -0.2% to +1.2% for cardiac mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that TV's based on CT might exclude PET-avid disease. Consequences are under dosing and thereby possibly ineffective treatment. Moreover, the addition of PET in radiation planning might result in clinical important changes in NTCP.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the consequences of target volume (TV) modifications, based on the additional use of PET information, on radiation planning, assuming PET/CT-imaging represents the true extent of the tumour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 21 patients with esophageal cancer, two separate TV's were retrospectively defined based on CT (CT-TV) and co-registered PET/CT images (PET/CT-TV). Two 3D-CRT plans (prescribed dose 50.4 Gy) were constructed to cover the corresponding TV's. Subsequently, these plans were compared for target coverage, normal tissue dose-volume histograms and the corresponding normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values. RESULTS: The addition of PET led to the modification of CT-TV with at least 10% in 12 of 21 patients (57%) (reduction in 9, enlargement in 3). PET/CT-TV was inadequately covered by the CT-based treatment plan in 8 patients (36%). Treatment plan modifications resulted in significant changes (p<0.05) in dose distributions to heart and lungs. Corresponding changes in NTCP values ranged from -3% to +2% for radiation pneumonitis and from -0.2% to +1.2% for cardiac mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that TV's based on CT might exclude PET-avid disease. Consequences are under dosing and thereby possibly ineffective treatment. Moreover, the addition of PET in radiation planning might result in clinical important changes in NTCP.
Authors: Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera; Igor Sirak; Miroslav Hodek; Petr Paluska; Jiri Dolezal; Marcela Kopacova Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Arta Monir Monjazeb; Greg Riedlinger; Mebea Aklilu; Kim R Geisinger; Girish Mishra; Scott Isom; Paige Clark; Edward A Levine; A William Blackstock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Gwynne; E Spezi; D Sebag-Montefiore; S Mukherjee; E Miles; J Conibear; J Staffurth Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Emma Holliday; Clifton D Fuller; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Daniel Gomez; Andreas Rimner; Ying Li; Suresh Senan; Lynn D Wilson; Jehee Choi; Ritsuko Komaki; Charles R Thomas Journal: J Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-11-03
Authors: E Jimenez-Jimenez; P Mateos; N Aymar; R Roncero; I Ortiz; M Gimenez; J Pardo; J Salinas; S Sabater Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.405