Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 1460–1466 | Cite as

Radiotherapy volume delineation using 18F-FDG-PET/CT modifies gross node volume in patients with oesophageal cancer

  • E. Jimenez-Jimenez
  • P. Mateos
  • N. Aymar
  • R. Roncero
  • I. Ortiz
  • M. Gimenez
  • J. Pardo
  • J. Salinas
  • S. Sabater
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Evidence supporting the use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the segmentation process of oesophageal cancer for radiotherapy planning is limited. Our aim was to compare the volumes and tumour lengths defined by fused PET/CT vs. CT simulation.

Materials and methods

Twenty-nine patients were analyzed. All patients underwent a single PET/CT simulation scan. Two separate GTVs were defined: one based on CT data alone and another based on fused PET/CT data. Volume sizes for both data sets were compared and the spatial overlap was assessed by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).

Results

The gross tumour volume (GTVtumour) and maximum tumour diameter were greater by PET/CT, and length of primary tumour was greater by CT, but differences were not statistically significant. However, the gross node volume (GTVnode) was significantly greater by PET/CT. The DSC analysis showed excellent agreement for GTVtumour, 0.72, but was very low for GTVnode, 0.25.

Conclusions

Our study shows that the volume definition by PET/CT and CT data differs. CT simulation, without taking into account PET/CT information, might leave cancer-involved nodes out of the radiotherapy-delineated volumes.

Keywords

18F-FDG-PET/CT Delineation Oesophageal Radiotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest of any author.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutitional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

As this study is retrospective study, formal content is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, et al. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:681–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Munch S, Aichmeier S, Hapfelmeier A, et al. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and toxicity in esophageal cancer patients undergoing 3D conformal radiotherapy or VMAT. Strahlenther Onkol. 2016;192:722–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leong T, Everitt C, Yuen K, et al. A prospective study to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET on CT-based radiotherapy treatment planning for oesophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2006;78:254–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moureau-Zabotto L, Touboul E, Lerouge D, et al. Impact of CT and 18F-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography image fusion for conformal radiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:340–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Konski A, Doss M, Milestone B, et al. The integration of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography and endoscopic ultrasound in the treatment-planning process for esophageal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:1123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hong TS, Killoran JH, Mamede M, Mamon HJ. Impact of manual and automated interpretation of fused PET/CT data on esophageal target definitions in radiation planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:1612–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vrieze O, Haustermans K, De Wever W, et al. Is there a role for FGD-PET in radiotherapy planning in esophageal carcinoma? Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matzinger O, Gerber E, Bernstein Z, et al. EORTC-ROG expert opinion: radiotherapy volume and treatment guidelines for neoadjuvant radiation of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction and the stomach. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:164–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanna GG, Hounsell AR, O’Sullivan JM. Geometrical analysis of radiotherapy target volume delineation: a systematic review of reported comparison methods. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010;22:515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sabater S, Pastor-Juan Mdel R, Berenguer R, et al. Analysing the integration of MR images acquired in a non-radiotherapy treatment position into the radiotherapy workflow using deformable and rigid registration. Radiother Oncol. 2016;119:179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zijdenbos AP, Dawant BM, Margolin RA, Palmer AC. Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:716–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, et al. Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2310–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouche O, et al. Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1160–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tai P, Van Dyk J, Yu E, et al. Variability of target volume delineation in cervical esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muijs CT, Schreurs LM, Busz DM, et al. Consequences of additional use of PET information for target volume delineation and radiotherapy dose distribution for esophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:447–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muijs CT, Beukema JC, Pruim J, et al. A systematic review on the role of FDG-PET/CT in tumour delineation and radiotherapy planning in patients with esophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97:165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Metzger J-C, Wollschlager D, Miederer M, et al. Inclusion of PET-CT into planning of primary or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy ofesophageal cancer improves prognosis. Strahlenther Onkol. 2017;193:791–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-017-1164-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schreurs LM, Busz DM, Paardekooper GM, et al. Impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on computed tomography defined target volumes in radiation treatment planning of esophageal cancer: reduction in geographic misses with equal inter-observer variability: PET/CT improves esophageal target definition. Dis Esophagus. 2010;23:493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ward G, Ramasamy S, Sykes JR, et al. Superiority of deformable image co-registration in the integration of diagnostic positron emission tomography-computed tomography to the radiotherapy treatment planning pathway for oesophageal carcinoma. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016;28:655–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gondi V, Bradley K, Mehta M, et al. Impact of hybrid fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography on radiotherapy planning in esophageal and non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seol KH, Lee JE. PET/CT planning during chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2014;32:31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vila A, Sanchez-Reyes A, Conill C, et al. Comparison of positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) for better target volume definition in radiation therapy planning. Clin Transl Oncol. 2010;12:367–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mamede M, El Fakhri G, Abreu-e-Lima P, et al. Pre-operative estimation of esophageal tumor metabolic length in FDG-PET images with surgical pathology confirmation. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:553–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang G, Han D, Ma C, et al. Gradient-based delineation of the primary GTV on FLT PET in squamous cell cancer of the thoracic esophagus and impact on radiotherapy planning. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiation Oncology DepartmentSt. Lucia University General HospitalCartagenaSpain
  2. 2.Medical Physics DepartmentClinica IMQ ZorrotzaurreBilbaoSpain
  3. 3.Radiation Oncology DepartmentHospital Universitari Son EspasesPalma de MallorcaSpain
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentHospital Universitari Son EspasesPalma de MallorcaSpain
  5. 5.Radiation Oncology DepartmentComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de AlbaceteAlbaceteSpain

Personalised recommendations