OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of including fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in the planning of paediatric radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Target volumes were first delineated without and subsequently re-delineated with access to (18)F-FDG PET scan information, on duplicate CT sets. RT plans were generated for three-dimensional conformal photon RT (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). The results were evaluated by comparison of target volumes, target dose coverage parameters, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and estimated risk of secondary cancer (SC). RESULTS: Considerable deviations between CT- and PET/CT-guided target volumes were seen in 3 out of the 11 patients studied. However, averaging over the whole cohort, CT or PET/CT guidance introduced no significant difference in the shape or size of the target volumes, target dose coverage, irradiated volumes, estimated NTCP or SC risk, neither for IMPT nor 3DCRT. CONCLUSION: Our results imply that the inclusion of PET/CT scans in the RT planning process could have considerable impact for individual patients. There were no general trends of increasing or decreasing irradiated volumes, suggesting that the long-term morbidity of RT in childhood would on average remain largely unaffected. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (18)F-FDG PET-based RT planning does not systematically change NTCP or SC risk for paediatric cancer patients compared with CT only. 3 out of 11 patients had a distinct change of target volumes when PET-guided planning was introduced. Dice and mismatch metrics are not sufficient to assess the consequences of target volume differences in the context of RT.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of including fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in the planning of paediatric radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Target volumes were first delineated without and subsequently re-delineated with access to (18)F-FDG PET scan information, on duplicate CT sets. RT plans were generated for three-dimensional conformal photon RT (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). The results were evaluated by comparison of target volumes, target dose coverage parameters, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and estimated risk of secondary cancer (SC). RESULTS: Considerable deviations between CT- and PET/CT-guided target volumes were seen in 3 out of the 11 patients studied. However, averaging over the whole cohort, CT or PET/CT guidance introduced no significant difference in the shape or size of the target volumes, target dose coverage, irradiated volumes, estimated NTCP or SC risk, neither for IMPT nor 3DCRT. CONCLUSION: Our results imply that the inclusion of PET/CT scans in the RT planning process could have considerable impact for individual patients. There were no general trends of increasing or decreasing irradiated volumes, suggesting that the long-term morbidity of RT in childhood would on average remain largely unaffected. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (18)F-FDG PET-based RT planning does not systematically change NTCP or SC risk for paediatric cancerpatients compared with CT only. 3 out of 11 patients had a distinct change of target volumes when PET-guided planning was introduced. Dice and mismatch metrics are not sufficient to assess the consequences of target volume differences in the context of RT.
Authors: Daniel K L Cheuk; Noah D Sabin; Moinul Hossain; Amy Wozniak; Mihir Naik; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Matthew J Krasin; Barry L Shulkin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Esther G C Troost; Dominic A X Schinagl; Johan Bussink; Wim J G Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Kimberly F Whelan; Kayla Stratton; Toana Kawashima; John W Waterbor; Robert P Castleberry; Marilyn Stovall; Charles A Sklar; Roger J Packer; Pauline Mitby; Candice L Aitken; Julie Blatt; Leslie L Robison; Ann C Mertens Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: W H St Clair; J A Adams; M Bues; B C Fullerton; Sean La Shell; H M Kooy; J S Loeffler; N J Tarbell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christina Zacharatou Jarlskog; Choonik Lee; Wesley E Bolch; X George Xu; Harald Paganetti Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 3.609