BACKGROUND: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0515 is a Phase II prospective trial designed to quantify the impact of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) compared with CT alone on radiation treatment plans (RTPs) and to determine the rate of elective nodal failure for PET/CT-derived volumes. METHODS: Each enrolled patient underwent definitive radiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (≥ 60 Gy) and had two RTP datasets generated: gross tumor volume (GTV) derived with CT alone and with PET/CT. Patients received treatment using the PET/CT-derived plan. The primary end point, the impact of PET/CT fusion on treatment plans was measured by differences of the following variables for each patient: GTV, number of involved nodes, nodal station, mean lung dose (MLD), volume of lung exceeding 20 Gy (V20), and mean esophageal dose (MED). Regional failure rate was a secondary end point. The nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used with Bonferroni adjustment for an overall significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: RTOG 0515 accrued 52 patients, 47 of whom are evaluable. The follow-up time for all patients is 12.9 months (2.7-22.2). Tumor staging was as follows: II = 6%; IIIA = 40%; and IIIB = 54%. The GTV was statistically significantly smaller for PET/CT-derived volumes (98.7 vs. 86.2 mL; p < 0.0001). MLDs for PET/CT plans were slightly lower (19 vs. 17.8 Gy; p = 0.06). There was no significant difference in the number of involved nodes (2.1 vs. 2.4), V20 (32% vs. 30.8%), or MED (28.7 vs. 27.1 Gy). Nodal contours were altered by PET/CT for 51% of patients. One patient (2%) has developed an elective nodal failure. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT-derived tumor volumes were smaller than those derived by CT alone. PET/CT changed nodal GTV contours in 51% of patients. The elective nodal failure rate for GTVs derived by PET/CT is quite low, supporting the RTOG standard of limiting the target volume to the primary tumor and involved nodes.
BACKGROUND: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0515 is a Phase II prospective trial designed to quantify the impact of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) compared with CT alone on radiation treatment plans (RTPs) and to determine the rate of elective nodal failure for PET/CT-derived volumes. METHODS: Each enrolled patient underwent definitive radiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (≥ 60 Gy) and had two RTP datasets generated: gross tumor volume (GTV) derived with CT alone and with PET/CT. Patients received treatment using the PET/CT-derived plan. The primary end point, the impact of PET/CT fusion on treatment plans was measured by differences of the following variables for each patient: GTV, number of involved nodes, nodal station, mean lung dose (MLD), volume of lung exceeding 20 Gy (V20), and mean esophageal dose (MED). Regional failure rate was a secondary end point. The nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used with Bonferroni adjustment for an overall significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: RTOG 0515 accrued 52 patients, 47 of whom are evaluable. The follow-up time for all patients is 12.9 months (2.7-22.2). Tumor staging was as follows: II = 6%; IIIA = 40%; and IIIB = 54%. The GTV was statistically significantly smaller for PET/CT-derived volumes (98.7 vs. 86.2 mL; p < 0.0001). MLDs for PET/CT plans were slightly lower (19 vs. 17.8 Gy; p = 0.06). There was no significant difference in the number of involved nodes (2.1 vs. 2.4), V20 (32% vs. 30.8%), or MED (28.7 vs. 27.1 Gy). Nodal contours were altered by PET/CT for 51% of patients. One patient (2%) has developed an elective nodal failure. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT-derived tumor volumes were smaller than those derived by CT alone. PET/CT changed nodal GTV contours in 51% of patients. The elective nodal failure rate for GTVs derived by PET/CT is quite low, supporting the RTOG standard of limiting the target volume to the primary tumor and involved nodes.
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Matthew J Nyflot; Tzu-Cheng Lee; Adam M Alessio; Scott D Wollenweber; Charles W Stearns; Stephen R Bowen; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Fenghai Duan; Mitchell Machtay; Jeremy J Gorelick; Bradley S Snyder; Abass Alavi; Barry A Siegel; Douglas W Johnson; Jeffrey D Bradley; Albert DeNittis; Maria Werner-Wasik Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mitchell Machtay; Fenghai Duan; Barry A Siegel; Bradley S Snyder; Jeremy J Gorelick; Janet S Reddin; Reginald Munden; Douglas W Johnson; Larry H Wilf; Albert DeNittis; Nancy Sherwin; Kwan Ho Cho; Seok-Ki Kim; Gregory Videtic; Donald R Neumann; Ritsuko Komaki; Homer Macapinlac; Jeffrey D Bradley; Abass Alavi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 44.544
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