INTRODUCTION: Sole utilization of computed tomography (CT) scans in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation for head-and-neck cancers is subject to inaccuracies. This study aims to evaluate contributions of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and physical examination (PE) to GTV delineation in oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS: Forty-one patients with OPC were studied. All underwent contrast-enhanced CT simulation scans (CECTs) that were registered with pretreatment PETs and MRIs. For each patient, three sets of primary and nodal GTV were contoured. First, reference GTVs (GTVref) were contoured by the treating radiation oncologist (RO) using CT, MRI, PET, and PE findings. Additional GTVs were created using fused CT/PET scans (GTVctpet) and CT/MRI scans (GTVctmr) by two other ROs blinded to GTVref. To compare GTVs, concordance indices (CI) were calculated by dividing the respective overlap volumes by overall volumes. To evaluate the contribution of PE, composite GTVs derived from CT, MRI, and PET (GTVctpetmr) were compared with GTVref. RESULTS: For primary tumors, GTVref was significantly larger than GTVctpet and GTVctmr (p < 0.001). Although no significant difference in size was noted between GTVctpet and GTVctmr (p = 0.39), there was poor concordance between them (CI = 0.62). In addition, although CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) was low, it was significantly higher than CI (ctpet vs. ref) and CI (ctmr vs. ref) (p < 0.001), suggesting that neither modality should be used alone. Qualitative analyses to explain the low CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) revealed underestimation of mucosal disease when GTV was contoured without knowledge of PE findings. Similar trends were observed for nodal GTVs. However, CI (ctpet vs. ref), CI (ctmr vs. ref), and CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) were high (>0.75), indicating that although the modalities were complementary, the added benefit was small in the context of CECTs. In addition, PE did not aid greatly in nodal GTV delineation. CONCLUSION: PET and MRI are complementary and combined use is ideal. However, the low CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) particularly for primary tumors underscores the limitations of defining GTVs using imaging alone. PE is invaluable and must be incorporated. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Sole utilization of computed tomography (CT) scans in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation for head-and-neck cancers is subject to inaccuracies. This study aims to evaluate contributions of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and physical examination (PE) to GTV delineation in oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS: Forty-one patients with OPC were studied. All underwent contrast-enhanced CT simulation scans (CECTs) that were registered with pretreatment PETs and MRIs. For each patient, three sets of primary and nodal GTV were contoured. First, reference GTVs (GTVref) were contoured by the treating radiation oncologist (RO) using CT, MRI, PET, and PE findings. Additional GTVs were created using fused CT/PET scans (GTVctpet) and CT/MRI scans (GTVctmr) by two other ROs blinded to GTVref. To compare GTVs, concordance indices (CI) were calculated by dividing the respective overlap volumes by overall volumes. To evaluate the contribution of PE, composite GTVs derived from CT, MRI, and PET (GTVctpetmr) were compared with GTVref. RESULTS: For primary tumors, GTVref was significantly larger than GTVctpet and GTVctmr (p < 0.001). Although no significant difference in size was noted between GTVctpet and GTVctmr (p = 0.39), there was poor concordance between them (CI = 0.62). In addition, although CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) was low, it was significantly higher than CI (ctpet vs. ref) and CI (ctmr vs. ref) (p < 0.001), suggesting that neither modality should be used alone. Qualitative analyses to explain the low CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) revealed underestimation of mucosal disease when GTV was contoured without knowledge of PE findings. Similar trends were observed for nodal GTVs. However, CI (ctpet vs. ref), CI (ctmr vs. ref), and CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) were high (>0.75), indicating that although the modalities were complementary, the added benefit was small in the context of CECTs. In addition, PE did not aid greatly in nodal GTV delineation. CONCLUSION: PET and MRI are complementary and combined use is ideal. However, the low CI (ctpetmr vs. ref) particularly for primary tumors underscores the limitations of defining GTVs using imaging alone. PE is invaluable and must be incorporated. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Carryn M Anderson; Wenqing Sun; John M Buatti; Joan E Maley; Bruno Policeni; Sarah L Mott; John E Bayouth Journal: Jacobs J Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-09
Authors: Jon Cacicedo; Arturo Navarro; Olga Del Hoyo; Alfonso Gomez-Iturriaga; Filippo Alongi; Jose A Medina; Olgun Elicin; Andrea Skanjeti; Francesco Giammarile; Pedro Bilbao; Francisco Casquero; Berardino de Bari; Alan Dal Pra Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Domen Močnik; Bulat Ibragimov; Lei Xing; Primož Strojan; Boštjan Likar; Franjo Pernuš; Tomaž Vrtovec Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Paul B Romesser; Muhammad M Qureshi; Rathan M Subramaniam; Osamu Sakai; Scharukh Jalisi; Minh T Truong Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Pinaki R Dutta; Nadeem Riaz; Sean McBride; Luc G Morris; Snehal Patel; Ian Ganly; Richard J Wong; Frank Palmer; Heiko Schöder; Nancy Lee Journal: Head Neck Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.147