Sébastien Hapdey1, Agathe Edet-Sanson2, Pierrick Gouel3, Benoît Martin4, Romain Modzelewski5, Marc Baron6, Anca Berghian7, Frédérique Forestier-Lebreton8, Dragos Georgescu9, Jean-Michel Picquenot10, Isabelle Gardin11, Bernard Dubray12, Pierre Vera13. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: sebastien.hapdey@chb.unicancer.fr. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: agathe.edet-sanson@chb.unicancer.fr. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: pierrick.gouel@chb.unicancer.fr. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: benoit.martin@etu.univ-rouen.fr. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: romain.modzelewski@chb.unicancer.fr. 6. Department of Surgery, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France. Electronic address: marc.baron@chb.unicancer.fr. 7. Department of Pathology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France. Electronic address: anca.berghian@chb.unicancer.fr. 8. Department of Surgery, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France. Electronic address: frederique.forestier-lebreton@chb.unicancer.fr. 9. Department of Surgery, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France. Electronic address: dragos.georgescu@chb.unicancer.fr. 10. Department of Pathology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France. Electronic address: jean-michel.picquenot@chb.unicancer.fr. 11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: isabelle.gardin@chb.unicancer.fr. 12. Department of Radiotherapy, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: bernard.dubray@chb.unicancer.fr. 13. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France; Rouen University Hospital, France; QuantIF - LITIS [UPRES EA 4108], Rouen, France. Electronic address: pierre.vera@chb.unicancer.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Various segmentation methods for 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images were correlated with pathological volume in breast cancer patients as a model of small mobile tumours. METHODS: Thirty women with T2-T3/M0 breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) were included prospectively. A FDG-PET/CT was acquired 4 ± 3d before surgery in prone and supine positions, with/without respiratory gating. The segmentation methods were as follows: manual (Vm), relative (Vt%) and adaptive (Va) standard uptake value (SUV) threshold and semi-automatic on CT (Vct). Pathological volumes (Vpath) were measured for 26 lesions. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) Vpath was 4.1 ± 2.9 mL, and the lesion displacements were 3.9 ± 2.8 mm (median value: 3 mm). The delineated VOIs did not vary with the acquisition position nor with respiration, regardless of the segmentation method. The Vm, Va, Vct and Vt% methods, except Vt30%, were correlated with Vpath (0.5<r<0.8). The Vt50% and Vm were the most accurate methods (mean±SD: 0.0 ± 1.6 mL and +0.6 ± 1.8 mL, respectively), followed by the Vct method. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with pathology, small lesions (diameter <50mm) with limited respiratory displacement (i.e., breast or apical lung lesions) are best delineated on FDG-PET/CT using a 50% SUVmax threshold. The acquisition position and respiratory gating did not modify the delineated volumes.
PURPOSE: Various segmentation methods for 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images were correlated with pathological volume in breast cancerpatients as a model of small mobile tumours. METHODS: Thirty women with T2-T3/M0 breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) were included prospectively. A FDG-PET/CT was acquired 4 ± 3d before surgery in prone and supine positions, with/without respiratory gating. The segmentation methods were as follows: manual (Vm), relative (Vt%) and adaptive (Va) standard uptake value (SUV) threshold and semi-automatic on CT (Vct). Pathological volumes (Vpath) were measured for 26 lesions. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) Vpath was 4.1 ± 2.9 mL, and the lesion displacements were 3.9 ± 2.8 mm (median value: 3 mm). The delineated VOIs did not vary with the acquisition position nor with respiration, regardless of the segmentation method. The Vm, Va, Vct and Vt% methods, except Vt30%, were correlated with Vpath (0.5<r<0.8). The Vt50% and Vm were the most accurate methods (mean±SD: 0.0 ± 1.6 mL and +0.6 ± 1.8 mL, respectively), followed by the Vct method. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with pathology, small lesions (diameter <50mm) with limited respiratory displacement (i.e., breast or apical lung lesions) are best delineated on FDG-PET/CT using a 50% SUVmax threshold. The acquisition position and respiratory gating did not modify the delineated volumes.
Authors: A Schaefer; M Vermandel; C Baillet; A S Dewalle-Vignion; R Modzelewski; P Vera; L Massoptier; C Parcq; D Gibon; T Fechter; U Nemer; I Gardin; U Nestle Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236