Target volume definition for 18F-FDG PET-positive lymph nodes in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer
- 334 Downloads
FDG PET is increasingly used in radiotherapy planning. Recently, we demonstrated substantial differences in target volumes when applying different methods of FDG-based contouring in primary lung tumours (Nestle et al., J Nucl Med 2005;46:1342–8). This paper focusses on FDG-positive mediastinal lymph nodes (LNPET).
In our institution, 51 NSCLC patients who were candidates for radiotherapy prospectively underwent staging FDG PET followed by a thoracic PET scan in the treatment position and a planning CT. Eleven of them had 32 distinguishable non-confluent mediastinal or hilar nodal FDG accumulations (LNPET). For these, sets of gross tumour volumes (GTVs) were generated at both acquisition times by four different PET-based contouring methods (visual: GTVvis; 40% SUVmax: GTV40; SUV=2.5: GTV2.5; target/background (T/B) algorithm: GTVbg).
All differences concerning GTV sizes were within the range of the resolution of the PET system. The detectability and technical delineability of the GTVs were significantly better in the late scans (e.g. p = 0.02 for diagnostic application of SUVmax = 2.5; p = 0.0001 for technical delineability by GTV2.5; p = 0.003 by GTV40), favouring the GTVbg method owing to satisfactory overall applicability and independence of GTVs from acquisition time. Compared with CT, the majority of PET-based GTVs were larger, probably owing to resolution effects, with a possible influence of lesion movements.
For nodal GTVs, different methods of contouring did not lead to clinically relevant differences in volumes. However, there were significant differences in technical delineability, especially after early acquisition. Overall, our data favour a late acquisition of FDG PET scans for radiotherapy planning, and the use of a T/B algorithm for GTV contouring.
KeywordsFDG PET Radiotherapy planning Lymph nodes Contouring
The authors wish to thank the staff of the two departments, and especially Ms. Susanne Bock, for their help in data acquisition. Furthermore, we thank Dr. Aleks Grgic for his assistance in radiodiagnostic questions, and Mr. Andrew Page for his help in the wording of the manuscript.
- 8.MacManus M, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, Hogg A, McKenzie AF, Wirth A, et al. High rate of detection of unsuspected distant metastases by PET in apparent stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for radical radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50(2):287–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Mah K, Caldwell CB, Ung YC, Danjoux CE, Balogh JM, Ganguli SN, et al. The impact of 18FDG-PET on target and critical organs in CT-based treatment planning of patients with poorly defined non-small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:339–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Vanuytsel LJ, Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, De Wever W, Verbeken EK, et al. The impact of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) lymph node staging on the radiation treatment volumes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000;55:317–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.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(8):1342–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med 1993;35:1308–12.Google Scholar
- 18.Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Nestle U, Sebastian-Welsch C, Rübe C, Kirsch C-M. Comparison of CT and CT-PET-fusion based 3D treatment plans in the percutaneous radiotherapy of lung cancer [abstract]. Radiother Oncol 2004;73 Suppl 1:S447–8.Google Scholar