UNLABELLED: Spatial organization of tumor phenotype is of great interest to radiotherapy target definition and outcome prediction. We characterized tumor phenotype in patients with cancers of the oropharynx through voxel-based correlation of PET images of metabolism, proliferation, and hypoxia. METHODS: Patients with oropharyngeal cancer received (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT, (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT, and (61)Cu-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (Cu-ATSM) PET/CT. Images were co-registered and standardized uptake values (SUV) were calculated for all modalities. Voxel-based correlation was evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficient in tumor regions. Additionally, sensitivity studies were performed to quantify the effects of image segmentation, registration, noise, and segmentation on R. RESULTS: On average, FDG PET and FLT PET images were most highly correlated (R(FDG:FLT) = 0.76, range 0.53-0.85), while Cu-ATSM PET showed greater heterogeneity in correlation to other tracers (R(FDG:Cu-ATSM) = 0.64, range 0.51-0.79; R(FLT:Cu-ATSM) = 0.61, range 0.21-0.80). Of the tested parameters, correlation was most sensitive to image registration. Misregistration of one voxel lead to ΔR(FDG) = 0.25, ΔR(FLT) = 0.39, and ΔR(Cu-ATSM) = 0.27. Image noise and reconstruction also had quantitative effects on correlation. No significant quantitative differences were found between GTV, expanded GTV, or CTV regions. CONCLUSIONS: Voxel-based correlation represents a first step into understanding spatial organization of tumor phenotype. These results have implications for radiotherapy target definition and provide a framework to test outcome prediction based on pretherapy distribution of phenotype.
UNLABELLED: Spatial organization of tumor phenotype is of great interest to radiotherapy target definition and outcome prediction. We characterized tumor phenotype in patients with cancers of the oropharynx through voxel-based correlation of PET images of metabolism, proliferation, and hypoxia. METHODS:Patients with oropharyngeal cancer received (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT, (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT, and (61)Cu-diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone) (Cu-ATSM) PET/CT. Images were co-registered and standardized uptake values (SUV) were calculated for all modalities. Voxel-based correlation was evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficient in tumor regions. Additionally, sensitivity studies were performed to quantify the effects of image segmentation, registration, noise, and segmentation on R. RESULTS: On average, FDG PET and FLT PET images were most highly correlated (R(FDG:FLT) = 0.76, range 0.53-0.85), while Cu-ATSM PET showed greater heterogeneity in correlation to other tracers (R(FDG:Cu-ATSM) = 0.64, range 0.51-0.79; R(FLT:Cu-ATSM) = 0.61, range 0.21-0.80). Of the tested parameters, correlation was most sensitive to image registration. Misregistration of one voxel lead to ΔR(FDG) = 0.25, ΔR(FLT) = 0.39, and ΔR(Cu-ATSM) = 0.27. Image noise and reconstruction also had quantitative effects on correlation. No significant quantitative differences were found between GTV, expanded GTV, or CTV regions. CONCLUSIONS: Voxel-based correlation represents a first step into understanding spatial organization of tumor phenotype. These results have implications for radiotherapy target definition and provide a framework to test outcome prediction based on pretherapy distribution of phenotype.
Authors: T Yamamoto; Y Seino; H Fukumoto; G Koh; H Yano; N Inagaki; Y Yamada; K Inoue; T Manabe; H Imura Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 1990-07-16 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: K S Chao; W R Bosch; S Mutic; J S Lewis; F Dehdashti; M A Mintun; J F Dempsey; C A Perez; J A Purdy; M J Welch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hubert Vesselle; John Grierson; Mark Muzi; Jeffrey M Pugsley; Rodney A Schmidt; Peter Rabinowitz; Lanell M Peterson; Eric Vallières; Douglas E Wood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stephen R Bowen; Albert J van der Kogel; Marianne Nordsmark; Søren M Bentzen; Robert Jeraj Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Mark A Mintun; Jason S Lewis; Jeffrey Bradley; Ramaswamy Govindan; Richard Laforest; Michael J Welch; Barry A Siegel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-04-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J G Rajendran; D C Wilson; E U Conrad; L M Peterson; J D Bruckner; J S Rasey; L K Chin; P D Hofstrand; J R Grierson; J F Eary; K A Krohn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-03-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Mark A Mintun; Jason S Lewis; Barry A Siegel; Michael J Welch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Catharina M L Zegers; Wouter van Elmpt; Bart Reymen; Aniek J G Even; Esther G C Troost; Michel C Ollers; Frank J P Hoebers; Ruud M A Houben; Jonas Eriksson; Albert D Windhorst; Felix M Mottaghy; Dirk De Ruysscher; Philippe Lambin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Peter Lin; Myo Min; Mark Lee; Lois Holloway; Dion Forstner; Victoria Bray; Allan Fowler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S R Bowen; M J Nyflot; C Herrmann; C M Groh; J Meyer; S D Wollenweber; C W Stearns; P E Kinahan; G A Sandison Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Matthew J Nyflot; Tim J Kruser; Anne M Traynor; Deepak Khuntia; David T Yang; Gregory K Hartig; Timothy M McCulloch; Peggy A Wiederholt; Lindell R Gentry; Tien Hoang; Robert Jeraj; Paul M Harari Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joseph C Walsh; Artem Lebedev; Edward Aten; Kathleen Madsen; Liane Marciano; Hartmuth C Kolb Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 8.401