[an error occurred while processing this directive] | [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Comparison of four methods for delineation of gross tumor volume on FDG PET/CT for patients with cervical cancer
LIN Lin*,ZHENG Rong, WU Ling-ying, WU Ning, ZHANG Wen-jie, LIU Ying, LIANG Ying, ZHAO Ping, LI Ye-xiong
*Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET-CT Centre, Cancer Hospital (Institute),Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021,China
Abstract Objective To compare the differences in 4 sets of gross tumor volumes (GTVs) generated from FDG PET/CT in cervical cancer, and determine the optimal method for target volume delineation of cervical cancer. Methods Sixteen cervical cancer patients with 28 primary or metastatic lesions underwent FDG PET/CT. CT and PET images were coregistered, and transferred to Pinnacle therapy planning workstation. Four sets of GTVs were defined. The first set (GTVvis) was manually contoured using a visual method on PET images. The second set (GTV40) was autocontoured using a threshold of 40% of the maximum intensity level for PET images. The third set (GTV2.5) used an autocontour of standardized uptake value (SUV) of 2.5 around the tumor. By phantom measurements we determined an algorithm (threshold=(mean target concentration+2.623)/1.975),GTVfunction was defined using this method as the fourth approach. The volumes of 4 sets of GTVs were compared with group t-test. Results The average volumes of GTVvis, GTV2.5, GTV40, and GTVfunction were 63.41, 53.20, 41.33, and 61.84 cm3. There was no significant difference between GTVfunction,GTV2.5 and GTVvis (t=1.05,0.91, P=0.305,0.37),but GTV40 were smaller than GTVvis. The SUVmax and target to background value had no significant influence on the differences between GTV40 and GTVfunction or GTVvis (t=0.00, －0.34, 0.92, 0.35, P=1.000, 0.746, 0.374, 0.737), but they had significant influence on the difference between GTV2.5 and GTVvis (t=－3.87,3.16,P=0.002,0.016). Conclusions GTVvis, GTV2.5 and GTVfunction all could be used for target delineation if the method can define the GTV. The difference between the GTVfunction and GTVvis was the smallest;GTV40 was smaller than GTVvis. GTV2.5 was significantly influenced by SUVmax and target to background value of the legions.
LIN Lin*,ZHENG Rong,WU Ling-ying et al. Comparison of four methods for delineation of gross tumor volume on FDG PET/CT for patients with cervical cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2012, 21(1): 56-59.
LIN Lin*,ZHENG Rong,WU Ling-ying et al. Comparison of four methods for delineation of gross tumor volume on FDG PET/CT for patients with cervical cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2012, 21(1): 56-59.
[1] Lin LL, Mutic S, Low DA, et al. Adaptive brachytherapy treatment planning for cervical cancer using FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2007,67:91-96. [2] Park W, Park YJ, Huh SJ,et al. The Usefulness of MRI and PET imaging for the detection of parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol,2005,35:260-264. [3] Grosu AL, Piert M, Weber WA, et al. Positron emission tomography for radiation treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol,2005,8:483-499. [4] Lin LL, Yang Z, Mutic S,et al. FDG-PET imaging for the assessment of physiologic volume response during radiotherapy in cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2006,65:177-181. [5] Mutic S, Malyapa RS, Grigsby PW, et al. PET-guided IMRT for cervical carcinoma with positive para-aortic lymph nodes-a dose-escalation treatment planning study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2003,55:28-35. [6] Esthappan J, Chaudhari S, Santanam L, et al. Prospective clinical trial of positron emission tomography/computed tomography image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy for cervical carcinoma with positive para-aortic lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2008,72:1134-1139. [7] 黄曼妮,徐英杰,吴令英,等. 宫颈癌调强放射治疗靶区设计的临床研究.癌症进展杂志,2008,6:523-527. [8] Ashamalla H, Rafla S, Parikh K, et al. The contribution of integrated PET/CT to the evolving definition of treatment volumes in radiation treatment planning in lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2005,63:1016-1023. [9] Bradley J, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, et al. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2004,59:78-86. [10] Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Eising EG,et al. Segmentation of PET volumes by iterative image thresholding. J Nucl Med,2007,48:108-114. [11] Grills IS, Yan D, Black QC, et al. Clinical implications of defining the gross tumor volume with combination of CT and 18FDG-positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2007,67:709-719. [12] Zaidi H, El Naqa I. PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes:a survey of image segmentation techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging,2010,37:2165-2187. [13] 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 Nucl Med,2006,47:1808-1812. [14] Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med,2005,46:1342-1348.
2012, Vol. 21 
