PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) of lung tumors suffers from breathing-motion induced blurring. Respiratory-correlated PET ameliorates motion blurring and enables visualization of lung tumor functional uptake throughout the breathing cycle but has achieved limited clinical use in radiotherapy planning. In this work, the authors propose a process for generating a gated PET maximum intensity projection (MIP), a breathing-phase projection of the 4D image set comprising gated PET images, as a technique to quantitatively and efficiently incorporate respiratory-correlated PET information into radiotherapy treatment planning. METHODS: 4D-CT and respiratory-gated PET using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) were acquired of three patients with a total of four small (4-18 cc), clearly defined lower-lobe lung tumors. Internal target volumes (ITVs) for the lung tumors were generated by threshold-based segmentation of PET-MIP images and ungated PET images (ITV(PET-MIP) and ITV(3D-PET), respectively), and by manual contouring of CT-MIP and end-exhale and end-inhale phases of 4D-CT (ITV(CT-MIP)) by a radiation oncologist. Because of the sensitivity of tumor segmentation to threshold value, several different thresholds were tested for ITV generation, including 40%, 30%, and 20% of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) for FDG as well as absolute SUV thresholds of 2.5 and 3.0. The normalized overlap and relative volumes of ITV(PET-MIP) and ITV(3D-PET) with respect to ITV(CT-MIP) were compared. The images were also visually compared. ITV(CT-MIP) was considered a gold standard for these tumors with CT-visible morphology. RESULTS: The mean and standard deviation normalized overlap and relative volumes between ITV(PET-MIP) and ITV(CT-MIP) were 0.68 ± 0.07 and 1.07 ± 0.42, respectively, averaged over all four tumors and all five threshold values. The mean and standard deviation normalized overlap and relative volumes of ITV(3D-PET) and ITV(CT-MIP) were 0.47 ± 0.12 and 0.69 ± 0.56, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET-MIP images better match CT-MIP images for this sample of four small CT-visible tumors as compared to ungated PET images, based on the metrics of volumetric overlap and relative volumes as well as visual interpretation. The PET-MIP is a way to incorporate 4D-PET imaging into the process of lung tumor contouring that is time-efficient for the radiation oncologist and involves minimal effort to implement in treatment planning software, because it requires only a single PET image beyond contouring on CT alone.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) of lung tumors suffers from breathing-motion induced blurring. Respiratory-correlated PET ameliorates motion blurring and enables visualization of lung tumor functional uptake throughout the breathing cycle but has achieved limited clinical use in radiotherapy planning. In this work, the authors propose a process for generating a gated PET maximum intensity projection (MIP), a breathing-phase projection of the 4D image set comprising gated PET images, as a technique to quantitatively and efficiently incorporate respiratory-correlated PET information into radiotherapy treatment planning. METHODS: 4D-CT and respiratory-gated PET using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) were acquired of three patients with a total of four small (4-18 cc), clearly defined lower-lobe lung tumors. Internal target volumes (ITVs) for the lung tumors were generated by threshold-based segmentation of PET-MIP images and ungated PET images (ITV(PET-MIP) and ITV(3D-PET), respectively), and by manual contouring of CT-MIP and end-exhale and end-inhale phases of 4D-CT (ITV(CT-MIP)) by a radiation oncologist. Because of the sensitivity of tumor segmentation to threshold value, several different thresholds were tested for ITV generation, including 40%, 30%, and 20% of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) for FDG as well as absolute SUV thresholds of 2.5 and 3.0. The normalized overlap and relative volumes of ITV(PET-MIP) and ITV(3D-PET) with respect to ITV(CT-MIP) were compared. The images were also visually compared. ITV(CT-MIP) was considered a gold standard for these tumors with CT-visible morphology. RESULTS: The mean and standard deviation normalized overlap and relative volumes between ITV(PET-MIP) and ITV(CT-MIP) were 0.68 ± 0.07 and 1.07 ± 0.42, respectively, averaged over all four tumors and all five threshold values. The mean and standard deviation normalized overlap and relative volumes of ITV(3D-PET) and ITV(CT-MIP) were 0.47 ± 0.12 and 0.69 ± 0.56, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET-MIP images better match CT-MIP images for this sample of four small CT-visible tumors as compared to ungated PET images, based on the metrics of volumetric overlap and relative volumes as well as visual interpretation. The PET-MIP is a way to incorporate 4D-PET imaging into the process of lung tumor contouring that is time-efficient for the radiation oncologist and involves minimal effort to implement in treatment planning software, because it requires only a single PET image beyond contouring on CT alone.
Authors: Daniel A Low; Michelle Nystrom; Eugene Kalinin; Parag Parikh; James F Dempsey; Jeffrey D Bradley; Sasa Mutic; Sasha H Wahab; Tareque Islam; Gary Christensen; David G Politte; Bruce R Whiting Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Sadek A Nehmeh; Yusuf E Erdi; Clifton C Ling; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Heiko Schoder; Steve M Larson; Homer A Macapinlac; Olivia D Squire; John L Humm Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Florian Büther; Mohammad Dawood; Lars Stegger; Frank Wübbeling; Michael Schäfers; Otmar Schober; Klaus P Schäfers Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hugo J W L Aerts; Angela A W van Baardwijk; Steven F Petit; Claudia Offermann; Judith van Loon; Ruud Houben; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Rinus Wanders; Liesbeth Boersma; Jacques Borger; Gerben Bootsma; Wiel Geraedts; Cordula Pitz; Jean Simons; Bradly G Wouters; Michel Oellers; Philippe Lambin; Geert Bosmans; Andre L A J Dekker; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mary Feng; Feng-Ming Kong; Milton Gross; Shaneli Fernando; James A Hayman; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Shyam S Jani; Clifford G Robinson; Magnus Dahlbom; Benjamin M White; David H Thomas; Sergio Gaudio; Daniel A Low; James M Lamb Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hannah Mary Thomas; Paul E Kinahan; James Jebaseelan E Samuel; Stephen R Bowen Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 1.735