BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [F-18] fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) has been validated as a hypoxic tracer. Head and neck cancer exhibits hypoxia, inducing aggressive biologic traits that impart resistance to treatment. Delivery of modestly higher radiation doses to tumors with stable areas of chronic hypoxia can improve tumor control. Advanced radiation treatment planning (RTP) and delivery techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can deliver higher doses to a small volume without increasing morbidity. We investigated the utility of co-registered FMISO-PET and CT images to develop clinically feasible RTPs with higher tumor control probabilities (TCP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: FMISO-PET images were used to determine hypoxic sub-volumes for boost planning. Example plans were generated for 10 of the patients in the study who exhibited significant hypoxia. We created an IMRT plan for each patient with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the hypoxic sub-volumes. We also varied the boost for two patients. RESULT: A significant (mean 17%, median 15%) improvement in TCP is predicted when the modest additional boost dose to the hypoxic sub-volume is included. CONCLUSION: Combined FMISO-PET imaging and IMRT planning permit delivery of higher doses to hypoxic regions, increasing the predicted TCP (mean 17%) without increasing expected complications. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [F-18] fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) has been validated as a hypoxic tracer. Head and neck cancer exhibits hypoxia, inducing aggressive biologic traits that impart resistance to treatment. Delivery of modestly higher radiation doses to tumors with stable areas of chronic hypoxia can improve tumor control. Advanced radiation treatment planning (RTP) and delivery techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can deliver higher doses to a small volume without increasing morbidity. We investigated the utility of co-registered FMISO-PET and CT images to develop clinically feasible RTPs with higher tumor control probabilities (TCP). MATERIALS AND METHODS:FMISO-PET images were used to determine hypoxic sub-volumes for boost planning. Example plans were generated for 10 of the patients in the study who exhibited significant hypoxia. We created an IMRT plan for each patient with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the hypoxic sub-volumes. We also varied the boost for two patients. RESULT: A significant (mean 17%, median 15%) improvement in TCP is predicted when the modest additional boost dose to the hypoxic sub-volume is included. CONCLUSION: Combined FMISO-PET imaging and IMRT planning permit delivery of higher doses to hypoxic regions, increasing the predicted TCP (mean 17%) without increasing expected complications. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: J G Rajendran; K R G Hendrickson; A M Spence; M Muzi; K A Krohn; D A Mankoff Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jean Bourhis; Jens Overgaard; Hélène Audry; Kian K Ang; Michele Saunders; Jacques Bernier; Jean-Claude Horiot; Aurélie Le Maître; Thomas F Pajak; Michael G Poulsen; Brian O'Sullivan; Werner Dobrowsky; Andrzej Hliniak; Krzysztof Skladowski; John H Hay; Luiz H J Pinto; Carlo Fallai; Karen K Fu; Richard Sylvester; Jean-Pierre Pignon Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-09-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph G Rajendran; David L Schwartz; Janet O'Sullivan; Lanell M Peterson; Patrick Ng; Jeffrey Scharnhorst; John R Grierson; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roman V Shchepin; Jonathan R Birchall; Nikita V Chukanov; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Thomas Theis; Warren S Warren; Juri G Gelovani; Boyd M Goodson; Sepideh Shokouhi; Matthew S Rosen; Yi-Fen Yen; Wellington Pham; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Chemistry Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Olivia J Kelada; Sara Rockwell; Ming-Qiang Zheng; Yiyun Huang; Yanfeng Liu; Carmen J Booth; Roy H Decker; Uwe Oelfke; Richard E Carson; David J Carlson Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: B Henriques de Figueiredo; T Merlin; H de Clermont-Gallerande; M Hatt; D Vimont; P Fernandez; F Lamare Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Thomas Theis; Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Roman V Shchepin; Jacob R Lindale; Warren S Warren; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 6.475