BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare MRI-based morphological gross tumour volumes (GTVs) to biological tumour volumes (BTVs), defined by the pathological radiotracer uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with (18)F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), subsequently clinical target volumes (CTVs) and finally planning target volumes (PTVs) for radiotherapy planning of glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with glioblastoma were included into a retrospective protocol. Treatment-planning was performed using clinical target volume (CTV=BTV+20mm or CTV=GTV+20mm+inclusion of the edema) and planning target volume (PTV=CTV+5mm). Image fusion and target volume delineation were performed with OTP-Masterplan®. Initial gross tumour volume (GTV) definition was based on MRI data only or FET-PET data only (BTV), secondarily both data sets were used to define a common CTV. RESULTS: FET based BTVs (median 43.9 cm(3)) were larger than corresponding GTVs (median 34.1cm(3), p=0.028), in 11 of 17 cases there were major differences between GTV/BTV. To evaluate the conformity of both planning methods, the index (CTV(MRT)∩CTV(FET))/(CTV(MRT)∪CTV(FET)) was quantified which was significantly different from 1 (0.73 ± 0.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: With FET-PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs/BTVs differed in a majority of patients. It remains open whether FET-PET-based target definition has a relevant clinical impact for treatment planning.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare MRI-based morphological gross tumour volumes (GTVs) to biological tumour volumes (BTVs), defined by the pathological radiotracer uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with (18)F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), subsequently clinical target volumes (CTVs) and finally planning target volumes (PTVs) for radiotherapy planning of glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with glioblastoma were included into a retrospective protocol. Treatment-planning was performed using clinical target volume (CTV=BTV+20mm or CTV=GTV+20mm+inclusion of the edema) and planning target volume (PTV=CTV+5mm). Image fusion and target volume delineation were performed with OTP-Masterplan®. Initial gross tumour volume (GTV) definition was based on MRI data only or FET-PET data only (BTV), secondarily both data sets were used to define a common CTV. RESULTS:FET based BTVs (median 43.9 cm(3)) were larger than corresponding GTVs (median 34.1cm(3), p=0.028), in 11 of 17 cases there were major differences between GTV/BTV. To evaluate the conformity of both planning methods, the index (CTV(MRT)∩CTV(FET))/(CTV(MRT)∪CTV(FET)) was quantified which was significantly different from 1 (0.73 ± 0.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: With FET-PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs/BTVs differed in a majority of patients. It remains open whether FET-PET-based target definition has a relevant clinical impact for treatment planning.
Authors: Nathalie L Jansen; Vera Graute; Lena Armbruster; Bogdana Suchorska; Juergen Lutz; Sabina Eigenbrod; Paul Cumming; Peter Bartenstein; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Friedrich Wilhelm Kreth; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Boda-Heggemann; M Guckenberger; U Ganswindt; C Belka; H Wertz; M Blessing; F Wenz; M Fuss; F Lohr Journal: Radiologe Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654