BACKGROUND: To define a suitable threshold setting for gross tumor volume (GTV) when using 18Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomogram (PET/CT) for radiotherapy planning in head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Fifteen HNC patients prospectively received PET/CT simulation for their radiation treatment planning. Biological target volume (BTV) was derived from PET/CT-based GTV of the primary tumor. The BTVs were defined as the isodensity volumes when adjusting different percentage of the maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax), excluding any artifact from surrounding normal tissues. CT-based primary GTV (C-pGTV) that had been previously defined by radiation oncologists was compared with the BTV. Suitable threshold level (sTL) could be determined when BTV value and its morphology using a certain threshold level was observed to be the best fitness of the C-pGTV. Suitable standardized uptake value (sSUV) was calculated as the sTL multiplied by the SUVmax. RESULTS: Our result demonstrated no single sTL or sSUV method could achieve an optimized volumetric match with the C-pGTV. The sTL was 13% to 27% (mean, 19%), whereas the sSUV was 1.64 to 3.98 (mean, 2.46). The sTL was inversely correlated with the SUVmax [sTL = -0.1004 Ln (SUVmax) + 0.4464; R2 = 0.81]. The sSUV showed a linear correlation with the SUVmax (sSUV = 0.0842 SUVmax + 1.248; R2 = 0.89). The sTL was not associated with the value of C-pGTVs. CONCLUSION: In PET/CT-based BTV for HNC, a suitable threshold or SUV level can be established by correlating with SUVmax rather than using a fixed threshold.
BACKGROUND: To define a suitable threshold setting for gross tumor volume (GTV) when using 18Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomogram (PET/CT) for radiotherapy planning in head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Fifteen HNC patients prospectively received PET/CT simulation for their radiation treatment planning. Biological target volume (BTV) was derived from PET/CT-based GTV of the primary tumor. The BTVs were defined as the isodensity volumes when adjusting different percentage of the maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax), excluding any artifact from surrounding normal tissues. CT-based primary GTV (C-pGTV) that had been previously defined by radiation oncologists was compared with the BTV. Suitable threshold level (sTL) could be determined when BTV value and its morphology using a certain threshold level was observed to be the best fitness of the C-pGTV. Suitable standardized uptake value (sSUV) was calculated as the sTL multiplied by the SUVmax. RESULTS: Our result demonstrated no single sTL or sSUV method could achieve an optimized volumetric match with the C-pGTV. The sTL was 13% to 27% (mean, 19%), whereas the sSUV was 1.64 to 3.98 (mean, 2.46). The sTL was inversely correlated with the SUVmax [sTL = -0.1004 Ln (SUVmax) + 0.4464; R2 = 0.81]. The sSUV showed a linear correlation with the SUVmax (sSUV = 0.0842 SUVmax + 1.248; R2 = 0.89). The sTL was not associated with the value of C-pGTVs. CONCLUSION: In PET/CT-based BTV for HNC, a suitable threshold or SUV level can be established by correlating with SUVmax rather than using a fixed threshold.
Authors: R J Wong; D T Lin; H Schöder; S G Patel; M Gonen; S Wolden; D G Pfister; J P Shah; S M Larson; D H Kraus Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L J Vanuytsel; J F Vansteenkiste; S G Stroobants; P R De Leyn; W De Wever; E K Verbeken; G G Gatti; D P Huyskens; G J Kutcher Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Katherine Mah; Curtis B Caldwell; Yee C Ung; Cyril E Danjoux; Judith M Balogh; S Nimu Ganguli; Lisa E Ehrlich; Romeo Tirona Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yusuf E Erdi; Kenneth Rosenzweig; Alev K Erdi; Homer A Macapinlac; Yu Chi Hu; Louise E Braban; John L Humm; Olivia D Squire; Chen Shou Chui; Steven M Larson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jeffrey Bradley; Wade L Thorstad; Sasa Mutic; Tom R Miller; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Walter Bosch; Rudi J Bertrand Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C Laubenbacher; D Saumweber; C Wagner-Manslau; R J Kau; M Herz; N Avril; S Ziegler; C Kruschke; W Arnold; M Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Carryn M Anderson; Wenqing Sun; John M Buatti; Joan E Maley; Bruno Policeni; Sarah L Mott; John E Bayouth Journal: Jacobs J Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-09
Authors: Luis Alberto Perez-Romasanta; Maria Bellon-Guardia; Javier Torres-Donaire; Eva Lozano-Martin; Miguel Sanz-Martin; Joaquin Velasco-Jimenez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 3.405