E Jimenez-Jimenez1, P Mateos2, N Aymar3, R Roncero3, I Ortiz3, M Gimenez4, J Pardo3, J Salinas5, S Sabater6. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, St. Lucia University General Hospital, Cartagena, Spain. estherjj83@gmail.com. 2. Medical Physics Department, Clinica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Bilbao, Spain. 3. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. 4. Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. 5. Radiation Oncology Department, St. Lucia University General Hospital, Cartagena, Spain. 6. Radiation Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence supporting the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the segmentation process of oesophageal cancer for radiotherapy planning is limited. Our aim was to compare the volumes and tumour lengths defined by fused PET/CT vs. CT simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were analyzed. All patients underwent a single PET/CT simulation scan. Two separate GTVs were defined: one based on CT data alone and another based on fused PET/CT data. Volume sizes for both data sets were compared and the spatial overlap was assessed by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). RESULTS: The gross tumour volume (GTVtumour) and maximum tumour diameter were greater by PET/CT, and length of primary tumour was greater by CT, but differences were not statistically significant. However, the gross node volume (GTVnode) was significantly greater by PET/CT. The DSC analysis showed excellent agreement for GTVtumour, 0.72, but was very low for GTVnode, 0.25. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the volume definition by PET/CT and CT data differs. CT simulation, without taking into account PET/CT information, might leave cancer-involved nodes out of the radiotherapy-delineated volumes.
PURPOSE: Evidence supporting the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the segmentation process of oesophageal cancer for radiotherapy planning is limited. Our aim was to compare the volumes and tumour lengths defined by fused PET/CT vs. CT simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were analyzed. All patients underwent a single PET/CT simulation scan. Two separate GTVs were defined: one based on CT data alone and another based on fused PET/CT data. Volume sizes for both data sets were compared and the spatial overlap was assessed by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). RESULTS: The gross tumour volume (GTVtumour) and maximum tumour diameter were greater by PET/CT, and length of primary tumour was greater by CT, but differences were not statistically significant. However, the gross node volume (GTVnode) was significantly greater by PET/CT. The DSC analysis showed excellent agreement for GTVtumour, 0.72, but was very low for GTVnode, 0.25. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the volume definition by PET/CT and CT data differs. CT simulation, without taking into account PET/CT information, might leave cancer-involved nodes out of the radiotherapy-delineated volumes.
Authors: L M A Schreurs; D M Busz; G M R M Paardekooper; J C Beukema; P L Jager; E J Van der Jagt; G M van Dam; H Groen; J Th M Plukker; J A Langendijk Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Olga Vrieze; Karin Haustermans; Walter De Wever; Toni Lerut; Eric Van Cutsem; Nadine Ectors; Martin Hiele; Patrick Flamen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Marcelo Mamede; Georges El Fakhri; Paula Abreu-e-Lima; William Gandler; Vânia Nosé; Victor H Gerbaudo Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2007-12-25 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Trevor Leong; Craig Everitt; Kally Yuen; Sara Condron; Andrew Hui; Samuel Y K Ngan; Alexander Pitman; Eddie W F Lau; Michael MacManus; David Binns; Trevor Ackerly; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Oscar Matzinger; Erich Gerber; Zvi Bernstein; Philippe Maingon; Karin Haustermans; Jean François Bosset; Akos Gulyban; Philip Poortmans; Laurence Collette; Abraham Kuten Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M Unterrainer; C Eze; H Ilhan; S Marschner; O Roengvoraphoj; N S Schmidt-Hegemann; F Walter; W G Kunz; P Munck Af Rosenschöld; R Jeraj; N L Albert; A L Grosu; M Niyazi; P Bartenstein; C Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.481