UNLABELLED: This work addresses the clinical adoption of FDG-PET/CT for image-guided radiation therapy planning (RTP). As such, important technical and methodological aspects of PET/CT-based RTP are reviewed and practical recommendations are given for routine patient management and clinical studies. First, recent developments in PET/CT hardware that are relevant to RTP are reviewed in the context of quality control and system calibration procedures that are mandatory for a reproducible adoption of PET/CT in RTP. Second, recommendations are provided on image acquisition and reconstruction to support the standardization of imaging protocols. A major prerequisite for routine RTP is a complete and secure data transfer to the actual planning system. Third, state-of-the-art tools for image fusion and co-registration are discussed briefly in the context of PET/CT imaging pre- and post-RTP. This includes a brief review of state-of-the-art image contouring algorithms relevant to PET/CT-guided RTP. Finally, practical aspects of clinical workflow and patient management, such as patient setup and requirements for staff training are emphasized. PET/CT-guided RTP mandates attention to logistical aspects, patient set-up and acquisition parameters as well as an in-depth appreciation of quality control and protocol standardization. CONCLUSION: Upon fulfilling the requirements to perform PET/CT for RTP, a new dimension of molecular imaging can be added to traditional morphological imaging. As a consequence, PET/CT imaging will support improved RTP and better patient care. This document serves as a guidance on practical and clinically validated instructions that are deemed useful to the staff involved in PET/CT-guided RTP.
UNLABELLED: This work addresses the clinical adoption of FDG-PET/CT for image-guided radiation therapy planning (RTP). As such, important technical and methodological aspects of PET/CT-based RTP are reviewed and practical recommendations are given for routine patient management and clinical studies. First, recent developments in PET/CT hardware that are relevant to RTP are reviewed in the context of quality control and system calibration procedures that are mandatory for a reproducible adoption of PET/CT in RTP. Second, recommendations are provided on image acquisition and reconstruction to support the standardization of imaging protocols. A major prerequisite for routine RTP is a complete and secure data transfer to the actual planning system. Third, state-of-the-art tools for image fusion and co-registration are discussed briefly in the context of PET/CT imaging pre- and post-RTP. This includes a brief review of state-of-the-art image contouring algorithms relevant to PET/CT-guided RTP. Finally, practical aspects of clinical workflow and patient management, such as patient setup and requirements for staff training are emphasized. PET/CT-guided RTP mandates attention to logistical aspects, patient set-up and acquisition parameters as well as an in-depth appreciation of quality control and protocol standardization. CONCLUSION: Upon fulfilling the requirements to perform PET/CT for RTP, a new dimension of molecular imaging can be added to traditional morphological imaging. As a consequence, PET/CT imaging will support improved RTP and better patient care. This document serves as a guidance on practical and clinically validated instructions that are deemed useful to the staff involved in PET/CT-guided RTP.
Authors: Lucy C Pike; Christopher M Thomas; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Andriana Michaelidou; Tony Greener; Elizabeth Miles; David Eaton; Sally F Barrington Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrea Schaefer; Yoo Jin Kim; Stephanie Kremp; Sebastian Mai; Jochen Fleckenstein; Hendrik Bohnenberger; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Rainer M Bohle; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Aleksandar Grgic Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Roberto Delgado-Bolton; Wim J G Oyen; Francesco Giammarile; Klaus Tatsch; Wolfgang Eschner; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Sally F Barrington; Lucy C Pike; Wolfgang A Weber; Sigrid Stroobants; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Scott Holbrook; Michael M Graham; Giorgio Testanera; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee Zijlstra; Eric Visser; Corneline J Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Antoon Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David Aramburu Núñez; Antonio Lopez Medina; Moisés Mera Iglesias; Francisco Salvador Gomez; Abhay Dave; Vaios Hatzoglou; Ramesh Paudyal; Alfonso Calzado; Joseph O Deasy; Amita Shukla-Dave; Victor M Muñoz Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2017-01-28
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621