Inter-Modality Variation in Gross Tumor Volume Delineation in 18FDG-PET Guided IMRT Treatment Planning for Lung Cancer

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yulin Song ◽  
Maria Chan ◽  
Chandra Burman ◽  
Donald Cann
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Gross Tumor Volume ◽  
Tumor Volume ◽  
Volume Delineation

scholarly journals Comparison of Tumor Target Volume on Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Lung Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 223
Author(s):  
Keeratikarn Boonyawan ◽  
Sasipilai Naivikul ◽  
Putipun Puataweepong ◽  
Wichana Chamroonrat ◽  
Thiti Swangsilpa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Volume Change ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Gross Tumor Volume ◽  
Tumor Volume ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Centroid Shift ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct

Objective: The correlation between 18F-fluorodexyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) based-tumor volumes is unclear. This prospective study was conducted to determine the optimal threshold of PET/CT for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation using 4DCT as the standard reference for locally advanced lung cancer patients.Material and Methods: Ten patients with histologically proven primary lung cancer who underwent radiotherapy fromJune 2017 to March 2018 in Ramathibodi Hospital were enrolled in the study. The 4DCT simulation and 18F-FDG PET/CT simulation were performed on the same position and same date. Eight standard uptake value (SUV) thresholds of SUV 1.5.0-2.0 and 15.0-35.0% of maximum SUV were selected for contouring in order to be compared with 4DCT based tumor volumes. The comparison methods used were the mean percentage volume change, dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and 3D-centroid shift of the targets between 18F-FDG PET/CT-based gross tumor volume (GTVPET) and internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) from 4DCT.Results: The largest and smallest volume of primary tumors were 422.6 cm3 and 5.9 cm3. GTVPET contoured using SUV 1.5 (GTVPET1.5) approximated closely to IGTV in all the parameters, including volume change, DSC, and 3D-centroid shift. The best median percentage volume change, median DSC, and median centroid shift between IGTV and GTVPET1.5 were 5.55, 0.745 and 0.37, respectively.Conclusion: GTVPET contoured by 18F-FDG PET at SUV1.5 corresponded most closely to the IGTV in all parameters. Further study with a larger sample size and clinical outcome analysis is needed.

scholarly journals TC simulation versus TC/PET simulation for radiotherapy in lung cancer: volumes comparison in two cases

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Franzone ◽  
A. Muni ◽  
E. Cazzulo ◽  
L. Berretta ◽  
G. Pozzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Gross Tumor Volume ◽  
Tumor Volume ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment Planning ◽  
Pulmonary Cancer ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

CT/PET is useful in early diagnosis, staging, follow-up and in radiotherapy treatment planning especially for tumors located in motion involved anatomic areas (chest and abdomen). We analysed the treatment planning for radiotherapy of two pulmonary cancer patients. A comparison was performed between GTV (Gross Tumor Volume) and PTV (Planning Target Volume) identified with CT images alone and GTV and PTV evaluated with CT/PET images. CT/PET imaging was demonstrated to significantly modify the target volume if compared with CT imaging: volumes were reduced by 32-49%.

NIMG-62. 68(GA)DOTATATE PET-BASED RADIATION CONTOURING CREATES SMALLER AND MORE PRECISE RADIATION VOLUMES FOR MENINGIOMA PATIENTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi143-vi143
Author(s):  
Haley Perlow ◽  
Michael Yang ◽  
Michael Siedow ◽  
Yevgeniya Gokun ◽  
Joseph McElroy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Pet Imaging ◽  
Gross Tumor Volume ◽  
Tumor Volume ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Mri Imaging ◽  
Radiation Treatment Planning ◽  
Volume Delineation ◽  
The Mean

Abstract PURPOSE Radiation treatment planning for meningiomas conventionally involves MRI contrast enhanced images to define residual tumor. However, the gross tumor volume may be difficult to delineate for patients with a meningioma in the skull base, sagittal sinus, or post resection. Advanced PET imaging using 68(GA)DOTATATE PET, which has been shown to be more sensitive and specific than MRI imaging, can be used for target volume delineation in these circumstances. We hypothesize that 68(GA)DOTATATE PET scan-based treatment planning will lead to smaller radiation volumes and will detect additional areas of disease compared to standard MRI alone. METHODS Our data evaluated retrospective, deidentified, and blinded gross tumor volume (GTV) contour delineation with 7 CNS specialists (3 neuroradiologists, 4 CNS radiation oncologists) for 26 patients diagnosed with a meningioma who received both a 68(GA)DOTATATE PET and an MRI for radiation treatment planning. Both the MRI and the PET were non-sequentially contoured by each physician for each patient. RESULTS The mean MRI volume for each physician ranged from 24.14-35.52 ccs. The mean PET volume for each physician ranged from 10.59-20.54 ccs. The PET volumes were significantly smaller for 6 out of the 7 physicians. In addition, 7/26 (27%) patients had new non-adjacent areas contoured on PET by at least 6 of the 7 physicians that were not contoured by these physicians on the corresponding MRI. These new areas would not have been in the traditional MRI based volumes. CONCLUSION Our study supports that 68(GA)DOTATATE PET imaging can help radiation oncologist create smaller and more precise radiation treatment volumes. Utilization of 68(GA)DOTATATE PET may find undetected areas of disease which in turn can improve local control and progression free survival. 68(GA)DOTATATE PET guided treatment planning should be studied prospectively.

Variation in gross tumor volume delineation using CT, MRI, and FDG-PET in planning radiotherapy of anal cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 652-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Serup-Hansen ◽  
Helle Westergren Hendel ◽  
Helle Hjorth Johannesen ◽  
Wiviann Ottosson ◽  
Christian Hollensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Gross Tumor Volume ◽  
Tumor Volume ◽  
Structural Information ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Anal Carcinoma ◽  
Observer Variation ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Volume Delineation ◽  
Ct And Mri

652 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) outcome depends on accurate delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV) regarding tumor size and position. CT and MRI are standard image modalities as they provide the necessary structural information. Positron emission tomography with flourodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) visualizes glucose metabolism in active tumor tissue. The main objective was to explore the intra-observer and inter-modality variation of the GTV delineated on CT, MRI and PET images. Methods: Between November 2006 and July 2009, 22 patients with biopsy-proven anal carcinoma stage T1-T4/N0-3/M0-1 scheduled for curative RT were included in the study. All patients underwent FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT and MRI. The delineations of GTV were done twice for each imaging modality with a minimum of 3 months in between. Delineations on the CT and MRI were done by routine methods. For the PET part three different cut-off values were used: SUV 2.5, 40% and 50% of maximum SUV. Non-overlap was calculated by subtracting the intersection from the union of two sets both regarding intra-observer variation and inter-modality variation. The GTV were compared for size, intra-observer variation and non-overlap using Wilcoxon rank sum test, where p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Volume size: the median GTV-CT was 25.6 cm3 which was significantly larger compared to GTV-MRI (7.2 cm3) and the GTV from the different PET cut offs (6.2 cm3, 10.6 cm3 and 7.0 cm3). Intra-observer variation: the median GTV delineated on CT, MRI and PET did not vary significant between delineation number 1 and 2. Non-overlap: the non-overlapping regions in GTV between delineation 1 and 2 using CT and MRI (20.5% and 22.5%) were significantly different from the PET cut offs (5.5% , 6.4% and 5.8%). Conclusions: Delineation of anal tumors is difficult; CT gives rise to the largest GTV with considerable intra-observer variation. MRI has the same degree of inaccuracy, but smaller GTV. PET-GTVs are the smallest with significant smaller intra-observer uncertainty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document