PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare recurrent tumor locations after radiation therapy with pretreatment delineations of high-grade gliomas from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[(18)F]fluoro-L-phenylalanine ((18)F-FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) using contours delineated by multiple observers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas underwent computed tomography (CT), gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI, and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT. The image sets (CT, MRI, and PET/CT) were registered, and 5 observers contoured gross tumor volumes (GTVs) using MRI and PET. Consensus contours were obtained by simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE). Interobserver variability was quantified by the percentage of volume overlap. Recurrent tumor locations after radiation therapy were contoured by each observer using CT or MRI. Consensus recurrence contours were obtained with STAPLE. RESULTS: The mean interobserver volume overlap for PET GTVs (42% ± 22%) and MRI GTVs (41% ± 22%) was not significantly different (P=.67). The mean consensus volume was significantly larger for PET GTVs (58.6 ± 52.4 cm(3)) than for MRI GTVs (30.8 ± 26.0 cm(3), P=.003). More than 95% of the consensus recurrence volume was within the 95% isodose surface for 11 of 12 (92%) cases with recurrent tumor imaging. Ten (91%) of these cases extended beyond the PET GTV, and 9 (82%) were contained within a 2-cm margin on the MRI GTV. One recurrence (8%) was located outside the 95% isodose surface. CONCLUSIONS: High-grade glioma contours obtained with (18)F-FDOPA PET had similar interobserver agreement to volumes obtained with MRI. Although PET-based consensus target volumes were larger than MRI-based volumes, treatment planning using PET-based volumes may not have yielded better treatment outcomes, given that all but 1 recurrence extended beyond the PET GTV and most were contained by a 2-cm margin on the MRI GTV.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare recurrent tumor locations after radiation therapy with pretreatment delineations of high-grade gliomas from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[(18)F]fluoro-L-phenylalanine ((18)F-FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) using contours delineated by multiple observers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas underwent computed tomography (CT), gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI, and (18)F-FDOPA PET/CT. The image sets (CT, MRI, and PET/CT) were registered, and 5 observers contoured gross tumor volumes (GTVs) using MRI and PET. Consensus contours were obtained by simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE). Interobserver variability was quantified by the percentage of volume overlap. Recurrent tumor locations after radiation therapy were contoured by each observer using CT or MRI. Consensus recurrence contours were obtained with STAPLE. RESULTS: The mean interobserver volume overlap for PET GTVs (42% ± 22%) and MRI GTVs (41% ± 22%) was not significantly different (P=.67). The mean consensus volume was significantly larger for PET GTVs (58.6 ± 52.4 cm(3)) than for MRI GTVs (30.8 ± 26.0 cm(3), P=.003). More than 95% of the consensus recurrence volume was within the 95% isodose surface for 11 of 12 (92%) cases with recurrent tumor imaging. Ten (91%) of these cases extended beyond the PET GTV, and 9 (82%) were contained within a 2-cm margin on the MRI GTV. One recurrence (8%) was located outside the 95% isodose surface. CONCLUSIONS: High-grade glioma contours obtained with (18)F-FDOPA PET had similar interobserver agreement to volumes obtained with MRI. Although PET-based consensus target volumes were larger than MRI-based volumes, treatment planning using PET-based volumes may not have yielded better treatment outcomes, given that all but 1 recurrence extended beyond the PET GTV and most were contained by a 2-cm margin on the MRI GTV.
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Antoine Girard; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Alice Metais; Beatrice Carsin Nicol; Dan Cristian Chiforeanu; Elise Bannier; Boris Campillo-Gimenez; Anne Devillers; Xavier Palard-Novello; Florence Le Jeune Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Robert Kosztyla; Srinivas Raman; Vitali Moiseenko; Stefan A Reinsberg; Brian Toyota; Alan Nichol Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Maximilian Niyazi; Anca L Grosu; Martin Kocher; Karl-Josef Langen; Ian Law; Giuseppe Minniti; Michelle M Kim; Christina Tsien; Frederic Dhermain; Riccardo Soffietti; Minesh P Mehta; Michael Weller; Jörg-Christian Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Clarissa A Whitehead; Hong P T Nguyen; Andrew P Morokoff; Rodney B Luwor; Lucia Paradiso; Andrew H Kaye; Theo Mantamadiotis; Stanley S Stylli Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Hiroyuki Uetani; Akifumi Hagiwara; Shadfar Bahri; Catalina Raymond; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Whitney B Pope; Noriko Salamon; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Ingrid Kristensen; Kristina Nilsson; Måns Agrup; Karin Belfrage; Anna Embring; Hedda Haugen; Anna-Maja Svärd; Tommy Knöös; Per Nilsson Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-04