RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Positron emission tomography (PET) is actively investigated to aid in target volume definition for radiation therapy. The objectives of this study were to apply an automatic computer algorithm to compute target volumes and to validate the algorithm using histologic data from real human prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Various modalities for prostate imaging were performed. In vivo imaging included T2 3-T magnetic resonance imaging and (11)C-choline PET. Ex vivo imaging included 3-T magnetic resonance imaging, histology, and block face photos of the prostate specimen. A novel registration method based on mutual information and thin-plate splines was applied to all modalities. Once PET is registered with histology, a voxel-by-voxel comparison between PET and histology is possible. A thresholding technique based on various fractions of the maximum standardized uptake value in the tumor was applied, and the respective computed threshold volume on PET was compared with histologic truth. RESULTS: Sixteen patients whose primary tumor volumes ranged from 1.2 to 12.6 cm(3) were tested. PET has low spatial resolution, so only tumors > 4 cm(3) were considered. Four cases met this criterion. A threshold value of 60% of the (11)C-choline maximum standardized uptake value resulted in the highest volume overlap between threshold volume on PET and histology. Medial axis distances between threshold volume on PET and histology showed a mean error of 7.7 +/- 5.2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This is a proof-of-concept study demonstrating for the first time that histology-guided thresholding on PET can delineate tumor volumes in real human prostate cancer. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Positron emission tomography (PET) is actively investigated to aid in target volume definition for radiation therapy. The objectives of this study were to apply an automatic computer algorithm to compute target volumes and to validate the algorithm using histologic data from real humanprostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Various modalities for prostate imaging were performed. In vivo imaging included T2 3-T magnetic resonance imaging and (11)C-choline PET. Ex vivo imaging included 3-T magnetic resonance imaging, histology, and block face photos of the prostate specimen. A novel registration method based on mutual information and thin-plate splines was applied to all modalities. Once PET is registered with histology, a voxel-by-voxel comparison between PET and histology is possible. A thresholding technique based on various fractions of the maximum standardized uptake value in the tumor was applied, and the respective computed threshold volume on PET was compared with histologic truth. RESULTS: Sixteen patients whose primary tumor volumes ranged from 1.2 to 12.6 cm(3) were tested. PET has low spatial resolution, so only tumors > 4 cm(3) were considered. Four cases met this criterion. A threshold value of 60% of the (11)C-choline maximum standardized uptake value resulted in the highest volume overlap between threshold volume on PET and histology. Medial axis distances between threshold volume on PET and histology showed a mean error of 7.7 +/- 5.2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This is a proof-of-concept study demonstrating for the first time that histology-guided thresholding on PET can delineate tumor volumes in real humanprostate cancer. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: C C Ling; J Humm; S Larson; H Amols; Z Fuks; S Leibel; J A Koutcher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael S Breen; Tanya L Lancaster; Roee S Lazebnik; Sherif G Nour; Jonathan S Lewin; David L Wilson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: John A D Aston; Vincent J Cunningham; Marie-Claude Asselin; Alexander Hammers; Alan C Evans; Roger N Gunn Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: C R Meyer; J L Boes; B Kim; P H Bland; K R Zasadny; P V Kison; K Koral; K A Frey; R L Wahl Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: I Frank Ciernik; Elena Dizendorf; Brigitta G Baumert; Beatrice Reiner; Cyrill Burger; J Bernard Davis; Urs M Lütolf; Hans C Steinert; Gustav K Von Schulthess Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hyunjin Park; David Wood; Hero Hussain; Charles R Meyer; Rajal B Shah; Timothy D Johnson; Thomas Chenevert; Morand Piert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S M Schwarzenböck; J Kurth; Ch Gocke; T Kuhnt; G Hildebrandt; B J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sascha Kaufmann; Stephan Kruck; Sergios Gatidis; Tobias Hepp; Wolfgang M Thaiss; Jörg Hennenlotter; Johannes Schwenck; Marcus Scharpf; Konstantin Nikolaou; Arnulf Stenzl; Gerald Reischl; Christian la Fougère; Jens Bedke Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Tanuj Puri; Anastasia Chalkidou; Rhonda Henley-Smith; Arunabha Roy; Paul R Barber; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Richard Oakley; Ricard Simo; Jean-Pierre Jeannon; Mark McGurk; Edward W Odell; Michael J O'Doherty; Paul K Marsden Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 3.138