| Literature DB >> 23888117 |
Ying Zhang1, Jing Hu, Jianping Li, Ning Wang, Weiwei Li, Yongchun Zhou, Junyue Liu, Lichun Wei, Mei Shi, Shengjun Wang, Jing Wang, Xia Li, Wanling Ma.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of imaging-based gross tumor volume (GTV) compared with pathological volume in cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET/CT; MRI; cervical cancer; gross tumor volume; pathological tumor volume
Year: 2013 PMID: 23888117 PMCID: PMC3722137 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S43264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Figure 1(A–D) Pathology procedure. The specimens are collected from surgery (A) and fixed in 10% formalin (B). The fixed specimens are sliced in 4 mm-thick consecutive transverse slices (C). Each slice is embedded in paraffin, sectioned, and processed for hematoxylin and eosin staining (D).
Figure 2Workflow of image acquisition and pathological procedure.
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; FDG-PET, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography; GTV-path, gross tumor volume through pathological image; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin.
Summary on GTVs in patients with cervical cancer for each case
| Case | Volume retraction (%) | GTV-path (cm3) | Actual GTV-path (cm3) | GTV imaging (cm3)
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | MRI | PET | ||||
| 1 | 88 | 1.04 | 1.18 | 5.76 | 1.5 | 1.34 |
| 2 | 95 | 1.76 | 1.85 | 10.94 | 2.7 | 2.01 |
| 3 | 78 | 3.64 | 4.67 | 18.13 | 4.95 | 3.92 |
| 4 | 97 | 4.34 | 4.47 | 15.92 | 5.72 | 3.98 |
| 5 | 65 | 4.89 | 7.52 | 7.64 | 7.81 | 7.89 |
| 6 | 72 | 6.80 | 9.44 | 12.35 | 9.28 | 9.59 |
| 7 | 86 | 12.13 | 14.10 | 18.47 | 16.4 | 14.25 |
| 8 | 87 | 13.42 | 15.43 | 27.89 | 18.84 | 15.39 |
| 9 | 90 | 20.84 | 23.15 | 42.04 | 29.32 | 22.46 |
| 10 | 92 | 24.04 | 26.13 | 34.99 | 30.03 | 29.88 |
| Mean | 10.79 | 19.41 | 12.66 | 11.07 | ||
| SD | 8.71 | 11.96 | 10.53 | 9.44 | ||
| 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.512 | ||||
Note:
Actual GTV-path calculated as GTV-path divided by the volume-retraction ratio.
Abbreviations: GTV-path, gross tumor volume through pathological image; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 3(A–D) One representative case (case 4) on CT image, MRI, PET image, and H&E image of surgical pathological specimen of cervical cancer. The tumor border is delineated by the red lines on CT (A), MRI (B), and PET (C), and by the black line on whole-mount section of tumor (D).
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin.
Figure 4(A–C) Correlation of the different gross tumor volumes among imaging modalities and the surgical specimen. (A) CT; (B) MRI; (C) PET.
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography.
Relative concordance among GTV-CT, -MRI, and -PET
| Case | GTV-CT vs GTV-MRI
| GTV-PET vs GTV-MRI
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conformity index | Lesion coverage factor | Conformity index | Lesion coverage factor | |
| 1 | 3.84 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 0.77 |
| 2 | 4.05 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.86 |
| 3 | 3.66 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.68 |
| 4 | 2.78 | 0.54 | 0.70 | 0.60 |
| 5 | 0.98 | 0.46 | 1.01 | 0.71 |
| 6 | 1.33 | 0.84 | 1.03 | 0.80 |
| 7 | 1.12 | 0.32 | 0.87 | 0.75 |
| 8 | 1.48 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.83 |
| 9 | 1.43 | 0.37 | 0.77 | 0.62 |
| 10 | 1.17 | 0.65 | 1.00 | 0.84 |
Abbreviations: GTV, gross tumor volume; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography.