PURPOSE: Optimal target delineation threshold values for positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) radiotherapy planning is controversial. In this present study, different PET CT threshold values were used for target delineation and then compared pathologically. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 non-small-cell lung cancer patients underwent PET CT before surgery. The maximal diameter (MD) of the pathologic primary tumor was obtained. The CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTV(CT)) were delineated for CT window-level thresholds at 1,600 and -300 Hounsfield units (HU) (GTV(CT1)); 1,600 and -400 (GTV(CT2)); 1,600 and -450 HU (GTV(CT3)); 1,600 and -600 HU (GTV(CT4)); 1,200 and -700 HU (GTV(CT5)); 900 and -450 HU (GTV(CT6)); and 700 and -450 HU (GTV(CT7)). The PET-based GTVs (GTV(PET)) were autocontoured at 20% (GTV(20)), 30% (GTV(30)), 40% (GTV(40)), 45% (GTV(45)), 50% (GTV(50)), and 55% (GTV(55)) of the maximal intensity level. The MD of each image-based GTV in three-dimensional orientation was determined. The MD of the GTV(PET) and GTV(CT) were compared with the pathologically determined MD. RESULTS: The median MD of the GTV(CT) changed from 2.89 (GTV(CT2)) to 4.46 (GTV(CT7)) as the CT thresholds were varied. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT) compared with the pathologically determined MD ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT1) was the best (r=0.87). The median MD of GTV(PET) changed from 5.72 cm to 2.67 cm as the PET thresholds increased. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(PET) compared with the pathologic finding ranged from 0.51 to 0.77. The correlation coefficient of GTV(50) was the best (r=0.77). CONCLUSION: Compared with the MD of GTV(PET), the MD of GTV(CT) had better correlation with the pathologic MD. The GTV(CT1) and GTV(50) had the best correlation with the pathologic results. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Optimal target delineation threshold values for positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) radiotherapy planning is controversial. In this present study, different PET CT threshold values were used for target delineation and then compared pathologically. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 non-small-cell lung cancerpatients underwent PET CT before surgery. The maximal diameter (MD) of the pathologic primary tumor was obtained. The CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTV(CT)) were delineated for CT window-level thresholds at 1,600 and -300 Hounsfield units (HU) (GTV(CT1)); 1,600 and -400 (GTV(CT2)); 1,600 and -450 HU (GTV(CT3)); 1,600 and -600 HU (GTV(CT4)); 1,200 and -700 HU (GTV(CT5)); 900 and -450 HU (GTV(CT6)); and 700 and -450 HU (GTV(CT7)). The PET-based GTVs (GTV(PET)) were autocontoured at 20% (GTV(20)), 30% (GTV(30)), 40% (GTV(40)), 45% (GTV(45)), 50% (GTV(50)), and 55% (GTV(55)) of the maximal intensity level. The MD of each image-based GTV in three-dimensional orientation was determined. The MD of the GTV(PET) and GTV(CT) were compared with the pathologically determined MD. RESULTS: The median MD of the GTV(CT) changed from 2.89 (GTV(CT2)) to 4.46 (GTV(CT7)) as the CT thresholds were varied. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT) compared with the pathologically determined MD ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT1) was the best (r=0.87). The median MD of GTV(PET) changed from 5.72 cm to 2.67 cm as the PET thresholds increased. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(PET) compared with the pathologic finding ranged from 0.51 to 0.77. The correlation coefficient of GTV(50) was the best (r=0.77). CONCLUSION: Compared with the MD of GTV(PET), the MD of GTV(CT) had better correlation with the pathologic MD. The GTV(CT1) and GTV(50) had the best correlation with the pathologic results. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Maud H W Starmans; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Georgi Nalbantov; Hugo J W L Aerts; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Paul C Boutros; Pierluigi Granone; Vincenzo Valentini; Adrian C Begg; Dirk De Ruysscher; Andre Dekker Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Kiarash Emami; Elaine Chia; Stephen Kadlecek; John P Macduffie-Woodburn; Jianliang Zhu; Stephen Pickup; Allison Blum; Masaru Ishii; Rahim R Rizi Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2010-09-30
Authors: Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Hugo J W L Aerts; Yuhua Gu; Dmitry B Goldgof; Dirk De Ruysscher; Andre Dekker; René Korn; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Andrea Schaefer; Yoo Jin Kim; Stephanie Kremp; Sebastian Mai; Jochen Fleckenstein; Hendrik Bohnenberger; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Rainer M Bohle; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Aleksandar Grgic Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Morten Høyer; Maria Thor; Sara Thörnqvist; Jimmi Søndergaard; Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad; Ludvig Paul Muren Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Patsuree Cheebsumon; Ronald Boellaard; Dirk de Ruysscher; Wouter van Elmpt; Angela van Baardwijk; Maqsood Yaqub; Otto S Hoekstra; Emile Fi Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Floris Hp van Velden Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 3.138