Jeffrey C Wyss1, Ruben Carmona1, Roshan A Karunamuni1, Jakub Pritz1, Carl K Hoh2, Loren K Mell3. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States. 2. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, United States. Electronic address: lmell@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-2-d-glucose (FDG) versus 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) for the purpose of identifying active pelvic bone marrow (BM), quantifying its locational variation, and determining which technique is likely to be better for BM-sparing radiation planning. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We sampled 41 patients, of which 25 underwent FDG-PET/CT only, 7 underwent FLT-PET/CT only, and 9 underwent both. Active BM subvolumes were defined as subsets of the pelvic BM with the highest standardized uptake values comprising 40%, 50%, and 60% of the total pelvic BM volume. We used the Dice similarity coefficient to quantify the percent overlap of active BM volumes of equal size. Differences in the spatial distribution of active BM were assessed using a region-growing algorithm. RESULTS: For patients with both modalities, the mean Dice coefficients for the 40%, 50%, and 60% subvolumes were 0.683, 0.732, and 0.781 respectively. Comparing individual active BM subvolumes to the mean subvolume, Dice coefficients varied from 0.598-0.889 for FDG and 0.739-0.912 for FLT. Region growing analysis showed FLT-PET defined more highly clustered active BM subvolumes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of a small sample size, we found significant agreement between FDG-PET and FLT-PET; however, FLT-PET had significantly less individual variation and is likely to be superior to FDG-PET for BM-sparing radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-2-d-glucose (FDG) versus 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) for the purpose of identifying active pelvic bone marrow (BM), quantifying its locational variation, and determining which technique is likely to be better for BM-sparing radiation planning. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We sampled 41 patients, of which 25 underwent FDG-PET/CT only, 7 underwent FLT-PET/CT only, and 9 underwent both. Active BM subvolumes were defined as subsets of the pelvic BM with the highest standardized uptake values comprising 40%, 50%, and 60% of the total pelvic BM volume. We used the Dice similarity coefficient to quantify the percent overlap of active BM volumes of equal size. Differences in the spatial distribution of active BM were assessed using a region-growing algorithm. RESULTS: For patients with both modalities, the mean Dice coefficients for the 40%, 50%, and 60% subvolumes were 0.683, 0.732, and 0.781 respectively. Comparing individual active BM subvolumes to the mean subvolume, Dice coefficients varied from 0.598-0.889 for FDG and 0.739-0.912 for FLT. Region growing analysis showed FLT-PET defined more highly clustered active BM subvolumes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of a small sample size, we found significant agreement between FDG-PET and FLT-PET; however, FLT-PET had significantly less individual variation and is likely to be superior to FDG-PET for BM-sparing radiotherapy.
Authors: Brent S Rose; Yun Liang; Steven K Lau; Lindsay G Jensen; Catheryn M Yashar; Carl K Hoh; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: G G Hanna; J R van Sörnsen de Koste; M R Dahele; K J Carson; C J A Haasbeek; R Migchielsen; A R Hounsell; S Senan Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Antoine Leimgruber; Andreas Möller; Sarah J Everitt; Marine Chabrot; David L Ball; Ben Solomon; Michael MacManus; Rodney J Hicks Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Olgun Elicin; Sharon Callaway; John O Prior; Jean Bourhis; Mahmut Ozsahin; Fernanda G Herrera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Clark J Brixey; John C Roeske; Anthony E Lujan; S Diane Yamada; Jacob Rotmensch; Arno J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John C Roeske; Anthony Lujan; Richard C Reba; Bill C Penney; S Diane Yamada; Arno J Mundt Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah J Everitt; David L Ball; Rodney J Hicks; Jason Callahan; Nikki Plumridge; Marnie Collins; Alan Herschtal; David Binns; Tomas Kron; Michal Schneider; Michael MacManus Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tahir Yusufaly; Austin Miller; Ana Medina-Palomo; Casey W Williamson; Hannah Nguyen; Jessica Lowenstein; Charles A Leath; Ying Xiao; Kevin L Moore; Katherine M Moxley; Carlos M Chevere-Mourino; Tony Y Eng; Tarrick Zaid; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Taiki Magome; Jerry Froelich; Yutaka Takahashi; Luke Arentsen; Shernan Holtan; Michael R Verneris; Keenan Brown; Akihiro Haga; Keiichi Nakagawa; Jennifer L Holter Chakrabarty; Sebastian Giebel; Jeffrey Wong; Kathryn Dusenbery; Guy Storme; Susanta K Hui Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Łukasz Kuncman; Konrad Stawiski; Michał Masłowski; Jakub Kucharz; Jacek Fijuth Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Lucas K Vitzthum; Elena S Heide; Helen Park; Casey W Williamson; Paige Sheridan; Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le; Igor Sirak; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Cammie Nguyen; Jyoti Mayadev; Catheryn M Yashar; Assuntina G Sacco; Loren K Mell Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 6.244