Advertisement

PET and PET/CT in Treatment Planning

  • Michael P. Mac Manus
  • Rodney J. Hicks
Chapter
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a major advance in lung cancer imaging and is having an increasing impact on the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who are candidates for potentially-curative treatment with radiotherapy. PET imaging, using 18F-flurodeoxyglucose as the tracer, and more recently in the form of FDG-PET/CT is now the most important single imaging modality for staging, patient selection and radiotherapy planning in NSCLC. If scans are acquired under appropriate conditions and the patient is positioned for radiotherapy, a single scan can be used for all of these purposes. In this chapter the role of PET and PET/CT in staging, patient selection and radiotherapy planning are discussed. Additionally, the use of FDG-PET for response assessment is described and finally the potential value of PET tracers other than FDG is considered.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Gross Tumor Volume Radical Radiotherapy Positron Emission Tomography Tracer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ball D, Smith J, Wirth A, Mac Manus M (2002) Failure of T stage to predict survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated by radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:1007–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne M et al (2010) Reproducibility of “intelligent” contouring of gross tumor volume in non-small-cell lung cancer on PET/CT images using a standardized visual method. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:1151–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biehl KJ et al (2006) 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 47:1808–1812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Binns DS et al (2011) Compliance with PET acquisition protocols for therapeutic monitoring of erlotinib therapy in an international trial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:642–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum R et al (2004) Impact of positron emission tomography on the management of patients with small-cell lung cancer: preliminary experience. Am J Clin Oncol 27:164–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowden P et al (2002) Measurement of lung tumor volumes using three-dimensional computer planning software. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:566–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley JD et al (2004) Positron emission tomography in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 22:3248–3254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buck AK et al (2010) Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J Nucl Med Technol 38:6–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldwell CB et al (2001) 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 51:923–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahele M et al (2008) Developing a methodology for three-dimensional correlation of PET-CT images and whole-mount histopathology in non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Oncol 15:62–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deniaud-Alexandre E et al (2005) Impact of computed tomography and 18F-deoxyglucose coincidence detection emission tomography image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:1432–1441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Ruysscher D et al (2005) Effects of radiotherapy planning with a dedicated combined PET-CT-simulator of patients with non-small cell lung cancer on dose limiting normal tissues and radiation dose-escalation: a planning study. Radiother Oncol 77:5–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunagan D et al (2001) Staging by positron emission tomography predicts survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 119:333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eschmann SM et al (2007) Impact of staging with 18F-FDG-PET on outcome of patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer: PET identifies potential survivors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:54–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everitt S et al (2009) Imaging cellular proliferation during chemo-radiotherapy: a pilot study of serial 18F-FLT positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75:1098–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Everitt S et al (2010) High rates of tumor growth and disease progression detected on serial pretreatment fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans in radical radiotherapy candidates with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 116:5030–5037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould MK et al (2003) Test performance of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for mediastinal staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 139:879–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregoire V, Haustermans K, Geets X, Roels S, Lonneux M (2007) PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard? J Nucl Med 48(Suppl 1):68S–77SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hicks RJ (2009) Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):31S–42SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP (2003) 18F-FDG PET in candidates for radiation therapy: is it important and how do we validate its impact? J Nucl Med 44:30–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hicks RJ et al (2001) (18)F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 42:1596–1604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Higashi K et al (2000) FDG PET measurement of the proliferative potential of non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 41:85–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hong R, Halama J, Bova D, Sethi A, Emami B (2007) Correlation of PET standard uptake value and CT window-level thresholds for target delineation in CT-based radiation treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:720–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffe CC (2006) Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 24:3245–3251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koizumi M et al (2011) Uptake decrease of proliferative PET tracer FLT in bone marrow after carbon ion therapy in lung cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 13:577–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolodziejczyk M et al (2011) Impact of [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT staging on treatment planning in radiotherapy incorporating elective nodal irradiation for non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80(4):1008–1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lever AM, Henderson D, Ellis DA, Corris PA, Gilmartin JJ (1984) Radiation fibrosis mimicking local recurrence in small cell carcinoma of the bronchus. Br J Radiol 57:178–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mac Manus MP et al (2010) Association between pulmonary uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose detected by positron emission tomography scanning after radiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer and radiation pneumonitis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80:1365–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mac Manus MP et al (2001) F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography staging in radical radiotherapy candidates with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: powerful correlation with survival and high impact on treatment. Cancer 92:886–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mac Manus MP et al (2002) Early mortality after radical radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: comparison of PET-staged and conventionally staged cohorts treated at a large tertiary referral center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:351–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mac Manus MP et al (2003) Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:1285–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacManus MR et al (2003) FDG-PET-detected extracranial metastasis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing staging for surgery or radical radiotherapy—survival correlates with metastatic disease burden. Acta Oncol 42:48–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacManus M et al (2009) Use of PET and PET/CT for radiation therapy planning: IAEA expert report 2006–2007. Radiother Oncol 91:85–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mah K et al (2002) The impact of (18)FDG-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 52:339–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mileshkin L et al (2011) Changes in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine position emission tomography imaging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res 17:3304–3315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Munley MT et al (1999) Multimodality nuclear medicine imaging in three-dimensional radiation treatment planning for lung cancer: challenges and prospects. Lung Cancer 23:105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nehmeh SA et al (2002) Effect of respiratory gating on quantifying PET images of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 43:876–881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Nestle U et al (2006) Target volume definition for (18)F-FDG PET-positive lymph nodes in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nestle U et al (1999) 18F-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for the planning of radiotherapy in lung cancer: high impact in patients with atelectasis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:593–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nestle U et al (2005) 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 46:1342–1348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pauleit D et al (2005) PET with O-(2–18F-Fluoroethyl)-l-Tyrosine in peripheral tumors: first clinical results. J Nucl Med 46:411–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pommier P et al (2010) Impact of (18)F-FDG PET on treatment strategy and 3D radiotherapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective multicenter study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reischl G et al (2007) Imaging of tumor hypoxia with [124I]IAZA in comparison with [18F]FMISO and [18F]FAZA–first small animal PET results. J Pharm Pharm Sci 10:203–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sasaki M et al (2001) Comparison of MET-PET and FDG-PET for differentiation between benign lesions and malignant tumors of the lung. Ann Nucl Med 15:425–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stroobants S, Verschakelen J, Vansteenkiste J (2003) Value of FDG-PET in the management of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Radiol 45:49–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toloza EM, Harpole L, Detterbeck F, McCrory DC (2003) Invasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence. Chest 123:157S–166SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Townsend DW, Beyer T (2002) A combined PET/CT scanner: the path to true image fusion. Br J Radiol 75(Spec No):S24–S30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. van Baardwijk A et al (2007) PET-CT-based auto-contouring in non-small-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:771–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van de Steene J et al (2002) Definition of gross tumor volume in lung cancer: inter-observer variability. Radiother Oncol 62:37–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Der Wel A et al (2005) Increased therapeutic ratio by 18FDG-PET CT planning in patients with clinical CT stage N2-N3M0 non-small-cell lung cancer: a modeling study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Loon J et al (2008) 18FDG-PET based radiation planning of mediastinal lymph nodes in limited disease small cell lung cancer changes radiotherapy fields: a planning study. Radiother Oncol 87:49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vanuytsel LJ et al (2000) The impact of (18)F-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 55:317–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(suppl 1):122S–150SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wurm RE et al (2006) Image guided respiratory gated hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (H-SBRT) for liver and lung tumors: initial experience. Acta Oncol 45:881–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yaremko B et al (2005) Thresholding in PET images of static and moving targets. Phys Med Biol 50:5969–5982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreEast MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Molecular ImagingPeter MacCallum Cancer CentreEast MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations