P Veit-Haibach1, D De Ruysscher2,3, W van Elmpt2, M Das4, Martin Hüllner1, H Sharifi2, K Zegers2, B Reymen2, P Lambin2, J E Wildberger4, E G C Troost2. 1. Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven/ KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) quantifies vasculature properties of tumors, whereas static FDG-PET/CT defines metabolic activity. Both imaging modalities are capable of showing intra-tumor heterogeneity. We investigated differences in vasculature properties within primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors measured by DCE-CT and metabolic activity from FDG-PET/CT. METHODS: Thirty three NSCLC patients were analyzed prior to treatment. FDG-PET/CT and DCE-CT were co-registered. The tumor was delineated and metabolic activity was segmented on the FDG-PET/CT in two regions: low (<50% maximum SUV) and high (≥50% maximum SUV) metabolic uptake. Blood flow, blood volume and permeability were calculated using a maximum slope, deconvolution algorithm and a Patlak model. Correlations were assessed between perfusion parameters for the regions of interest. RESULTS: DCE-CT provided additional information on vasculature and tumor heterogeneity that was not correlated to metabolic tumor activity. There was no significant difference between low and high metabolic active regions for any of the DCE-CT parameters. Furthermore, only moderate correlations between maximum SUV and DCE-CT parameters were observed. CONCLUSIONS: No direct correlation was observed between FDG-uptake and parameters extracted from DCE-CT. DCE-CT may provide complementary information to the characterization of primary NSCLC tumors over FDG-PET/CT imaging.
PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) quantifies vasculature properties of tumors, whereas static FDG-PET/CT defines metabolic activity. Both imaging modalities are capable of showing intra-tumor heterogeneity. We investigated differences in vasculature properties within primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors measured by DCE-CT and metabolic activity from FDG-PET/CT. METHODS: Thirty three NSCLCpatients were analyzed prior to treatment. FDG-PET/CT and DCE-CT were co-registered. The tumor was delineated and metabolic activity was segmented on the FDG-PET/CT in two regions: low (<50% maximum SUV) and high (≥50% maximum SUV) metabolic uptake. Blood flow, blood volume and permeability were calculated using a maximum slope, deconvolution algorithm and a Patlak model. Correlations were assessed between perfusion parameters for the regions of interest. RESULTS:DCE-CT provided additional information on vasculature and tumor heterogeneity that was not correlated to metabolic tumor activity. There was no significant difference between low and high metabolic active regions for any of the DCE-CT parameters. Furthermore, only moderate correlations between maximum SUV and DCE-CT parameters were observed. CONCLUSIONS: No direct correlation was observed between FDG-uptake and parameters extracted from DCE-CT. DCE-CT may provide complementary information to the characterization of primary NSCLC tumors over FDG-PET/CT imaging.
Authors: Vicky Goh; Manu Shastry; Alec Engledow; Jonathan Reston; David M Wellsted; Jacqui Peck; Raymondo Endozo; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Ashley M Groves Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Steven F Petit; Hugo J W L Aerts; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Cary J G Oberije; Maud H W Starmans; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Guus A M S van Dongen; Kristoff Muylle; Patrick Flamen; André L A J Dekker; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Johannes G Korporaal; Marco van Vulpen; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Adam G Chandler; Wei Wei; Ella F Anderson; Delise H Herron; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Adrianus J de Langen; Vivian van den Boogaart; Mark Lubberink; Walter H Backes; Johannes T Marcus; Harm van Tinteren; Jan Pruim; Boudewijn Brans; Pieter Leffers; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Egbert F Smit; Harry J M Groen; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thibaud P Coroller; Patrick Grossmann; Ying Hou; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Gretchen Hermann; Philippe Lambin; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Raymond H Mak; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Catharina M L Zegers; Bart Reymen; Aniek J G Even; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Michel Oellers; Joachim E Wildberger; Felix M Mottaghy; Marco Das; Esther G C Troost; Philippe Lambin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236