PURPOSE: To compare CT-, MR- and PET-CT based tumor length measurements in rectal cancer with pathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-six rectal cancer patients underwent both MR and PET-CT imaging followed by short-course radiotherapy (RT 5×5 Gy) and surgery within 3 days after RT. Tumor length was measured manually and independently by 2 observers on CT, MR and PET. PET-based tumor length measurements were also generated automatically using the signal-to-background-ratio (SBR) method. All measurements were correlated with the tumor length on the pathological specimen. RESULTS: CT-based measurements did not show a valuable correlation with pathology. MR-based measurements correlated only weakly, but still significantly (Pearson correlation=0.55 resp. 0.57; p<0.001). Manual PET measurements reached a good correlation with pathology, but less strong (Pearson correlation 0.72 and 0.76 for the two different observers) than automatic PET-CT based measurements, which provided the best correlation with pathology (Pearson correlation of 0.91 (p<0.001)). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated in general an overestimation of the tumor diameter using manual measurements, while the agreement of automatic contours and pathology was within acceptable ranges. A direct comparison of the different modalities revealed a significant better precision for PET-based auto-contours as compared to all other measurements. CONCLUSION: Automatically generated PET-CT based contours show the best correlation with the surgical specimen and thus provide a useful and powerful tool to accurately determine the largest tumor dimension in rectal cancer. This could be used as a quick and reliable tool for target delineation in radiotherapy. However, a 3D volume analysis is needed to confirm these results.
PURPOSE: To compare CT-, MR- and PET-CT based tumor length measurements in rectal cancer with pathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-six rectal cancerpatients underwent both MR and PET-CT imaging followed by short-course radiotherapy (RT 5×5 Gy) and surgery within 3 days after RT. Tumor length was measured manually and independently by 2 observers on CT, MR and PET. PET-based tumor length measurements were also generated automatically using the signal-to-background-ratio (SBR) method. All measurements were correlated with the tumor length on the pathological specimen. RESULTS: CT-based measurements did not show a valuable correlation with pathology. MR-based measurements correlated only weakly, but still significantly (Pearson correlation=0.55 resp. 0.57; p<0.001). Manual PET measurements reached a good correlation with pathology, but less strong (Pearson correlation 0.72 and 0.76 for the two different observers) than automatic PET-CT based measurements, which provided the best correlation with pathology (Pearson correlation of 0.91 (p<0.001)). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated in general an overestimation of the tumor diameter using manual measurements, while the agreement of automatic contours and pathology was within acceptable ranges. A direct comparison of the different modalities revealed a significant better precision for PET-based auto-contours as compared to all other measurements. CONCLUSION: Automatically generated PET-CT based contours show the best correlation with the surgical specimen and thus provide a useful and powerful tool to accurately determine the largest tumor dimension in rectal cancer. This could be used as a quick and reliable tool for target delineation in radiotherapy. However, a 3D volume analysis is needed to confirm these results.
Authors: Uulke A van der Heide; Antonetta C Houweling; Greetje Groenendaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Rachel L G M Blom; Inge R Steenbakkers; Guido Lammering; Roy F A Vliegen; Eric J Belgers; Charlotte de Jonge; Wendy M J Schreurs; Marius Nap; Meindert N Sosef Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kinga Dębiec; Jerzy Wydmański; Izabela Gorczewska; Paulina Leszczyńska; Kamil Gorczewski; Wojciech Leszczyński; Andrea d’Amico; Michał Kalemba Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2017-11-26
Authors: M Unterrainer; C Eze; H Ilhan; S Marschner; O Roengvoraphoj; N S Schmidt-Hegemann; F Walter; W G Kunz; P Munck Af Rosenschöld; R Jeraj; N L Albert; A L Grosu; M Niyazi; P Bartenstein; C Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Nadia Withofs; Claire Bernard; Catherine Van der Rest; Philippe Martinive; Mathieu Hatt; Sebastien Jodogne; Dimitris Visvikis; John A Lee; Philippe A Coucke; Roland Hustinx Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102