Comparison of internal gross tumor volumes delineated based on MIP images of 4DCT and different SUV thresholds of FDG PET/CT for non-small cell lung cancer
Duan Yili, Li Jianbin, Zhang Yingjie, Wang Wei, Fan Tingyong, Shao Qian, Xu Min, Guo Yanluan, Shang Dongping, Fu Zheng
Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital& Institute, Ji′nan 250117, China
Abstract：Objective To compare the positional and volumetric differences between internal gross target volumes (IGTV) based on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) images of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) and different standardized uptake value (SUV) thresholds of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) for the primary tumor of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Ten patients with NSCLC sequentially underwent contrast-enhanced 3DCT and 4DCT, as well as FDG PET-CT (with the same body position and positional parameters). IGTVMIP of the primary tumor was delineated on the MIP images of 4DCT. IGTVPET2.0, IGTVPET2.5, IGTVPET3.0, IGTVPET3.5, IGTVPET20%, IGTVPET25%, IGTVPET30%, IGTVPET35%, IGTVPET40% andIGTVPETmanwere automatically and manually delineated based on different SUV thresholds of FDG PET/CT and different percentages of SUVmax. The differences in position, volume, matching index (MI), and degree of inclusion (DI) between IGTVPET and IGTVMIP were evaluated by paired t-test. Results There were significant differences in center coordinate between IGTVPET and IGTVMIP only in z axes (P=0.014—0.044). In terms of volume, IGTVPET2.0 and IGTVPET20% were most similar to IGTVMIP, with volume ratios of 1.02 and 1.06(P=0.806). The highest MI was seen between IGTVMIP and IGTVPET2.0 and between IGTVMIP and IGTVPET20%(0.46 and 0.45, P=0.603). The DI of IGTVPET20% or IGTVPET2.0 in IGTVMIP was the highest (0.61 or 0.61, P=0.963). Conclusions IGTVPET2.0 and IGTVPET20% are most similar to IGTVMIP in terms of volume and matching index, but neither of them could replace IGTVMIP in spatial position. When the IGTV of the primary tumor of NSCLC is delineated based on PET-CT, target position correction should be done with reference to 4DCT images while selecting the suitable SUV threshold.
Duan Yili,Li Jianbin,Zhang Yingjie et al. Comparison of internal gross tumor volumes delineated based on MIP images of 4DCT and different SUV thresholds of FDG PET/CT for non-small cell lung cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2014, 23(4): 317-321.
[1] Underberg RW, Lagerwaard FJ, Slotman BJ, et al. Use of maximum intensity projections (MIP) for target volume generation in 4DCT scans for lung cancer[J].Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2005,63:253-260. [2] Greco C, Rosenzweig K, Cascini GL, et al. Current status of PET/CT for tumor volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)[J].Lung Cancer,2007,57:125-134. [3] Okubo M, Nishimura Y, Nakamatsu K, et al. Static and moving phantom studies for radiation treatment planning in a position emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) system[J].Ann Nucl Med,2008,22:579-586. [4] Hanna GG, McAleese J, Carson KJ, et al.(18) F-FDG PET-CT simulation for non-small cell lung cancer:what is the impact in patients already staged by PET-CT[J]? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2010,77:24-30. [5] Hof H, Rhern B, Haering P, et al.4D-CT-based target volume definition in stereotactic radiotherapy of lung tumors:comparison with a conventional technique using individual margins[J].Radiother Oncol,2009,93:419-423. [6] Ezhil M, Vedam S, Balter P, et al. Determination of patient-specific internal gross tumor volumes for lung cancer using four-dimensional computed tomography[J]. Radiat Oncol,2009,4:4-10. [7] Muirhead R, McNee SG, Featherstone C, et al. Use of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) for target outlining in 4DCT radiotherapy planning[J]. J Thorac Oncol,2008,3:1433-1438. [8] Rietzel E, Liu AK, Chen GT, et al. Maximum-intensity volumes for fast contouring of lung tumors including respiratory motion in 4DCT planning[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2008,71:1245-1252. [9] Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, et al. Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly-defined non-small cell lung tumors on CT:the impact of 18FDG-Hybrid PET fusion[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2001,51:923-931. [10] Hanna GG, van Somsen de Koste JR, Dahele MR, et al. Defining target volumes for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of early-stage lung tumors:a comparison of three dimensional (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography[J]. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol),2012,24:71-80. [11] Caldwell CB, Mah K, Skinner M, et al. Can PET provide the 3D extent of tumor motion for individualized internal target volumes? A phantom study of the limitations of CT and the promise of PET[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2003,55:1381-1393. [12] Biehl KJ, Kong FM, Dehdashti F, et al. 18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer:is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate[J]? J Nucl Med,2006,47:1808-1812. [13] Callahan J, Kron T, Schneider-Kolsky M, et al. Validation of a 4D-PET maximum intensity projection for delineation of an internal target volume[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2013,86:749-754. [14] Lamb JM, Robinson C, Bradley J, et al. Generating lung tumor internal target volume from 4D-PET maximum intensity projections[J]. Med Phys,2011,38:5732-5737.
2014, Vol. 23 
