Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Delineation gross tumor volume based on positron emission tomography images by a numerical approximation method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

A scheme, named SUV_Shape, for the gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation on positron emission tomography (PET) images was designed by a numerical approximation method, and evaluated during this study.

Methods

Twenty-one vacuous plastic balls of different shapes and sizes, their volumes ranged from 0.56 to 179.50 mL and were confirmed by a BL610 balance (Sartorius, Canada), consisted of four group models. Every group model was filled with a specific activity [18F]-FDG solution (55.1, 38.2, 23.7, and 36.3 kBq/mL) represented tumor, and fixed at the bottom of a barrel which was filled with unlike [18F]-FDG solution (5.4, 6.8, 8.1, and 4.0 kBq/mL, correspondingly) represented the background. The PET data of them were acquired by two-dimensional and three-dimensional mode in a PET/CT scanner (Discovery ST8, GE Healthcare, USA). The volume of each ball was measured by SUV_Shape, and the BL610 balance, labeled as GTVs and GTVt, respectively. Five rabbits implanted VX2 squamous carcinomas were acquired by [18F]-FDG PET/CT. These rabbits were mercy killed within 24 h after PET/CT acquisition. VX2 tumors were surgically removed, and their volumes were measured by SUV_Shape, and caliper, labeled as GTVs and GTVt. The Spearman’s ρ between GTVs and GTVt were done.

Results

The tumor-background ratios in four groups of phantom models were 10.3, 5.6, 2.9, and 9.0, respectively. The relationship between GTVt and GTVs for phantom models was significant (Spearman’s ρ > 0.95, P < 0.01), regardless of the different acquisition modes. Twelve VX2 tumor nodes or masses were measured; their GTVt ranged from 0.11 to 29.26 mL. The relationship between GTVt and GTVs was significant (Spearman’s ρ = 0.893, P < 0.01) for animal tumor models.

Conclusions

The SUV_Shape scheme could delineate tumors based on their radiopharmaceutical-avid PET images.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MacManus M, Nestle U, Rosenzweig KE, Carrio I, Messa C, Belohlavek O, et al. Use of PET and PET/CT for radiation therapy planning: IAEA expert report 2006–2007. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91:85–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, Danjoux CE, Balogh JM, Ganguli SN, 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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:923–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vesprini D, Ung Y, Dinniwell R, Breen S, Cheung F, Grabarz D, et al. Improving observer variability in target delineation for gastro-oesophageal cancer–the role of (18F)fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008;20:631–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu K, Ung YC, Hwang D, Tsao MS, Darling G, Maziak DE, et al. Autocontouring and manual contouring: which is the better method for target delineation using 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer? J Nucl Med. 2010;51:517–23.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hatt M. Cheze-le Rest C, van Baardwijk A, Lambin P, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Impact of tumor size and tracer uptake heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1690–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Black QC, Grills IS, Kestin LL, Wong CY, Wong JW, Martinez AA, et al. Defining a radiotherapy target with positron emission tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1272–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Sebastian-Welsch C, Hellwig D, Rübe C, 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;46:1342–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis JB, Reiner B, Huser M, Burger C, Székely G, Ciernik IF. Assessment of 18F PET signals for automatic target volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2006;80:43–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Eising EG, Heinze M, Brandau W, Bockisch A. Segmentation of PET volumes by iterative image thresholding. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:108–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schaefer A, Kremp S, Hellwig D, Rübe C, Kirsch CM, Nestle U. A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1989–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nehmeh SA, El-Zeftawy H, Greco C, Schwartz J, Erdi YE, Kirov A, et al. An iterative technique to segment PET lesions using a Monte Carlo based mathematical model. Med Phys. 2009;36:4803–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yu W, Fu XL, Zhang YJ, Xiang JQ, Shen L, Jiang GL, et al. GTV spatial conformity between different delineation methods by 18FDG PET/CT and pathology in esophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Impact of [18F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2136–44.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, Frings V, de Langen AJ, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumor delineation methods: a test–retest assessment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1550–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zaidi H, Abdoli M, Fuentes CL, El Naqa IM. Comparative methods for PET image segmentation in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:881–91.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hatt M, Lamare F, Boussion N, Turzo A, Collet C, Salzenstein F, et al. Fuzzy hidden Markov chains segmentation for volume determination and quantitation in PET. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:3467–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Saad A, Hamarneh G, Möller T, Smith B. Kinetic modeling based probabilistic segmentation for molecular images. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2008;11:244–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wanet M, Lee JA, Weynand B, De Bast M, Poncelet A, Lacroix V, et al. Gradient-based delineation of the primary GTV on FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer: A comparison with threshold-based approaches, CT and surgical specimens. Radiother Oncol. 2011;98:117–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Soret M, Bacharach L, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meirelles GS, Kijewski P, Akhurst T. Correlation of PET/CT standardized uptake value measurements between dedicated workstations and a PACS-integrated workstation system. J Digit Imaging. 2007;20:307–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):11S–20S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S, Bural G, Surti S, Alavi A. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:341–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Apostolova I, Wiemker R, Paulus T, Kabus S, Dreilich T, van den Hoff J, et al. Combined correction of recovery effect and motion blur for SUV quantification of solitary pulmonary nodules in FDG PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1868–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van Dalen JA, Hoffmann AL, Dicken V, Vogel WV, Wiering B, Ruers TJ, et al. A novel iterative method for lesion delineation and volumetric quantification with FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:485–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Drever L, Robinson DM, McEwan A, Roa W. A local contrast based approach to threshold segmentation for PET target volume delineation. Med Phys. 2006;33:1583–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hofheinz F, Dittrich S, Pötzsch C, Hoff JV. Effects of cold sphere walls in PET phantom measurements on the volume reproducing threshold. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:1099–113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Department, Quanzhou First Hospital of Fujian Medical University, 248 East street, Licheng District, 362000, Quanzhou, China

    Yangchun Chen

  2. The PET-CT Center of the first Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, 1 Kangda road, 510230, Guangzhou, China

    Yangchun Chen & Fanyong Li

  3. Radiology Department, Quanzhou First Hospital of Fujian Medical University, 248 East street, Licheng District, 362000, Quanzhou, China

    Xiangrong Chen

  4. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory, Micro-nano Manufacturing Technology and Equipment, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

    Liu Ji-an

Authors
  1. Yangchun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangrong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fanyong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liu Ji-an
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangrong Chen.

Additional information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 30800274].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Y., Chen, X., Li, F. et al. Delineation gross tumor volume based on positron emission tomography images by a numerical approximation method. Ann Nucl Med 28, 980–985 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-014-0894-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-014-0894-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation