Francine E M Voncken1, Erik Vegt2, Johanna W van Sandick3, Jolanda M van Dieren4, Cecile Grootscholten4, Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten5, Steven L Takken6, Jan-Jakob Sonke6, Jeroen B van de Kamer6, Berthe M P Aleman6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. f.voncken@nki.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Respiratory-induced motion of oesophageal tumours and lymph nodes can influence positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The aim was to compare standard three-dimensional (3D) and motion-compensated PET/CT regarding standardized uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and detection of lymph node metastases. METHODS: This prospective observational study (NCT02424864) included 37 newly diagnosed oesophageal cancer patients. Diagnostic PET/CT was reconstructed in 3D and motion-compensated PET/CT. MTVs of the primary tumour were calculated using an automated region-growing algorithm with SUV thresholds of 2.5 (MTV2.5) and ≥ 50% of SUVmax (MTV50%). Blinded for reconstruction method, a nuclear medicine physician assessed all lymph nodes showing 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose uptake for their degree of suspicion. RESULTS: The mean (95% CI) SUVmax of the primary tumour was 13.1 (10.6-15.5) versus 13.0 (10.4-15.6) for 3D and motion-compensated PET/CT, respectively. MTVs were also similar between the two techniques. Bland-Altman analysis showed mean differences between both measurements (95% limits of agreement) of 0.08 (-3.60-3.75), -0.26 (-2.34-1.82), 4.66 (-29.61-38.92) cm3 and -0.95 (-19.9-18.0) cm3 for tumour SUVmax, lymph node SUVmax, MTV2.5 and MTV50%, respectively. Lymph nodes were classified as highly suspicious (30/34 nodes), suspicious (20/22) and dubious (66/59) for metastases on 3D/motion-compensated PET/CT. No additional lymph node metastases were found on motion-compensated PET/CT. SUVmax of the most intense lymph nodes was similar for both scans: mean (95% CI) 6.6 (4.3-8.8) and 6.8 (4.5-9.1) for 3D and motion-compensated, respectively. CONCLUSION: SUVmax of the primary oesophageal tumour and lymph nodes was comparable on 3D and motion-compensated PET/CT. The use of motion-compensated PET/CT did not improve lymph node detection.
PURPOSE: Respiratory-induced motion of oesophageal tumours and lymph nodes can influence positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The aim was to compare standard three-dimensional (3D) and motion-compensated PET/CT regarding standardized uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and detection of lymph node metastases. METHODS: This prospective observational study (NCT02424864) included 37 newly diagnosed oesophageal cancer patients. Diagnostic PET/CT was reconstructed in 3D and motion-compensated PET/CT. MTVs of the primary tumour were calculated using an automated region-growing algorithm with SUV thresholds of 2.5 (MTV2.5) and ≥ 50% of SUVmax (MTV50%). Blinded for reconstruction method, a nuclear medicine physician assessed all lymph nodes showing 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose uptake for their degree of suspicion. RESULTS: The mean (95% CI) SUVmax of the primary tumour was 13.1 (10.6-15.5) versus 13.0 (10.4-15.6) for 3D and motion-compensated PET/CT, respectively. MTVs were also similar between the two techniques. Bland-Altman analysis showed mean differences between both measurements (95% limits of agreement) of 0.08 (-3.60-3.75), -0.26 (-2.34-1.82), 4.66 (-29.61-38.92) cm3 and -0.95 (-19.9-18.0) cm3 for tumour SUVmax, lymph node SUVmax, MTV2.5 and MTV50%, respectively. Lymph nodes were classified as highly suspicious (30/34 nodes), suspicious (20/22) and dubious (66/59) for metastases on 3D/motion-compensated PET/CT. No additional lymph node metastases were found on motion-compensated PET/CT. SUVmax of the most intense lymph nodes was similar for both scans: mean (95% CI) 6.6 (4.3-8.8) and 6.8 (4.5-9.1) for 3D and motion-compensated, respectively. CONCLUSION: SUVmax of the primary oesophageal tumour and lymph nodes was comparable on 3D and motion-compensated PET/CT. The use of motion-compensated PET/CT did not improve lymph node detection.
Authors: H L van Westreenen; M Westerterp; P M M Bossuyt; J Pruim; G W Sloof; J J B van Lanschot; H Groen; J Th M Plukker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Angel Soriano Castrejón; Antonio Alberto León Martín; Beatriz González García; John Patrick Pilkington Woll; Azahara Palomar Muñoz Journal: J Nucl Med Technol Date: 2011-05-12
Authors: Abraham J Wu; Walter R Bosch; Daniel T Chang; Theodore S Hong; Salma K Jabbour; Lawrence R Kleinberg; Harvey J Mamon; Charles R Thomas; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christina T Muijs; Jannet C Beukema; Jan Pruim; Veronique E Mul; Henk Groen; John Th Plukker; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Andre Konski; Mohan Doss; Barton Milestone; Oleh Haluszka; Alexandra Hanlon; Gary Freedman; Lee Adler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Matthijs F Kruis; Jeroen B van de Kamer; Antonetta C Houweling; Jan-Jakob Sonke; José S A Belderbos; Marcel van Herk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M E Nowee; F E M Voncken; A N T J Kotte; L Goense; P S N van Rossum; A L H M W van Lier; S W Heijmink; B M P Aleman; J Nijkamp; G J Meijer; I M Lips Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-26