PURPOSE: The use of 4D-[(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in combination with respiratory gated magnet resonance imaging (MRI) in target volume definition for stereotactic radiation of liver metastases was investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 18 patients received respiration gated FDG-PET/CT and MRI. Data were fused using a rigid co-registration algorithm. The quality of the co-registration was rated on a scale from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor) for co-registration of MRI with gated PET and ungated PET. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated in CT (GTV (CT)), MRI (GTV(MRI)), and PET (GTV(PET)). MRI- and PET-based GTVs were defined by three observers each. Interobserver variability was calculated for all patients as well as for subgroups with and without previous treatment of liver metastases. All GTVs were compared for all patients and separately for patients with previous local therapy. In addition, a semiautomatic segmentation algorithm was applied on the PET images. RESULTS: Co-registration between MR and PET images was rated with 3.3 in average when non-gated PET was used and improved significantly (p < 0.01) to 2.1 using gated PET. The average GTV(CT) was 51.5 ml, GTV(MRI) 51.8 ml, and the average GTV(PET) 48.1 ml. Volumes delineated in MRI were 9.9% larger compared to those delineated in CT. Volumes delineated in PET were 13.8% larger than in MRI. The differences between the GTVs were more pronounced in patients with previous treatment. The GTVs defined in MRI showed an interobserver variability of 47.9% (84.1% with previous treatment and 26.2% without previous treatment). The PET-defined GTVs showed an interobserver variability of 21% regardless of previous treatment. Semiautomatic segmentation did not provide satisfying results. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET can distinguish vital tumor tissue and scar tissue, and therefore alters the GTV especially in patients with previous local treatment. In addition, it reduces the interobserver variability significantly compared to MRI. However, respiratory gated PET is necessary for good co-registration of PET and MRI.
PURPOSE: The use of 4D-[(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in combination with respiratory gated magnet resonance imaging (MRI) in target volume definition for stereotactic radiation of liver metastases was investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 18 patients received respiration gated FDG-PET/CT and MRI. Data were fused using a rigid co-registration algorithm. The quality of the co-registration was rated on a scale from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor) for co-registration of MRI with gated PET and ungated PET. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated in CT (GTV (CT)), MRI (GTV(MRI)), and PET (GTV(PET)). MRI- and PET-based GTVs were defined by three observers each. Interobserver variability was calculated for all patients as well as for subgroups with and without previous treatment of liver metastases. All GTVs were compared for all patients and separately for patients with previous local therapy. In addition, a semiautomatic segmentation algorithm was applied on the PET images. RESULTS: Co-registration between MR and PET images was rated with 3.3 in average when non-gated PET was used and improved significantly (p < 0.01) to 2.1 using gated PET. The average GTV(CT) was 51.5 ml, GTV(MRI) 51.8 ml, and the average GTV(PET) 48.1 ml. Volumes delineated in MRI were 9.9% larger compared to those delineated in CT. Volumes delineated in PET were 13.8% larger than in MRI. The differences between the GTVs were more pronounced in patients with previous treatment. The GTVs defined in MRI showed an interobserver variability of 47.9% (84.1% with previous treatment and 26.2% without previous treatment). The PET-defined GTVs showed an interobserver variability of 21% regardless of previous treatment. Semiautomatic segmentation did not provide satisfying results. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET can distinguish vital tumor tissue and scar tissue, and therefore alters the GTV especially in patients with previous local treatment. In addition, it reduces the interobserver variability significantly compared to MRI. However, respiratory gated PET is necessary for good co-registration of PET and MRI.
Authors: Guido Lammering; Dirk De Ruysscher; Angela van Baardwijk; Brigitta G Baumert; Jacques Borger; Ludy Lutgens; Piet van den Ende; Michel Ollers; Philippe Lambin Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Maciej Pech; Konrad Mohnike; Gero Wieners; Ewa Bialek; Oliver Dudeck; Max Seidensticker; Nils Peters; Peter Wust; Günther Gademann; Jens Ricke Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Sabrina T Astner; Mihaela Dobrei-Ciuchendea; Markus Essler; Ralf A Bundschuh; Heitetsu Sai; Markus Schwaiger; Michael Molls; Wolfgang A Weber; Anca-Ligia Grosu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kai Joachim Borm; Markus Oechsner; Johannes Berndt; Stephanie Elisabeth Combs; Michael Molls; Marciana Nona Duma Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Gabriele Reinartz; Uwe Haverkamp; Ramona Wullenkord; Philipp Lehrich; Jan Kriz; Florian Büther; Klaus Schäfers; Michael Schäfers; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: C Doll; V Duncker-Rohr; G Rücker; M Mix; M MacManus; D De Ruysscher; W Vogel; J G Eriksen; W Oyen; A-L Grosu; W Weber; U Nestle Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ralph A Bundschuh; Christina M Wendl; Gregor Weirich; Mathias Eiber; Michael Souvatzoglou; Uwe Treiber; Hubert Kübler; Tobias Maurer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hans Geinitz; Anca L Grosu; Sibylle I Ziegler; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Matthias Kroiss; Masatoyo Nakajo; Dirk O Mügge; Stefanie Hahner; Martin Fassnacht; Andreas Schirbel; Christina Bluemel; Takahiro Higuchi; Laszló Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Andreas K Buck; Ralph A Bundschuh; Constantin Lapa Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: C G Vos; M Dahele; J R van Sörnsen de Koste; S Senan; I Bahce; M A Paul; E Thunnissen; E F Smit; K J Hartemink Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-12-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M Essler; J Wantke; B Mayer; K Scheidhauer; R A Bundschuh; B Haller; S T Astner; M Molls; N Andratschke Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 3.621