Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:38:14.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Volumetric and dosimetric comparison of computerised radiotherapy treatment plan between using positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and CT images for target delineation in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2016

Sanphat Sangudsup
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Master Degree Program, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Tawika Kaewchur
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Waralee Teeyasoontranon
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Pitchayaponne Klunklin
Affiliation:
Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Nisa Chawapun
Affiliation:
Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Supoj Ua-apisitwong*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
*
Correspondence to: Supoj Ua-apisitwong, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 239 Huay Kaew Road, Muang District, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 50200. Tel: +66 83 5668983. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Purpose

To compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning between using positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and CT for target volume delineation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Nine NSCLC patients with PET/CT images were enrolled into this study. Gross tumour volumes (GTVs) were delineated by the PET visual assessment (PETvis), the automated PET (PETauto), standardised uptake value (SUV)>2·5 (PET2·5) and threshold 40% SUVmax (PET40), and CT-based method. For each patient, two IMRT treatment plans based on CT and PET/CT delineation were performed. The target coverage and the dose–volume parameters for organs at risk were analysed.

Results

The PETauto referred to PET40 when SUVmax<7 and PET2·5 when SUVmax≥7. The mean GTVs were 15·04, 15·7 and 15·14 cc for PETauto, PETvis and CT based, respectively. The GTV of PETauto was not different from PETvis (p=0·441) and CT based (p=0·594). Based on CT delineation in IMRT planning, only 34% of the cases had sufficient PET/CT planning target volumes coverage, whereas the organs at risk dose parameters were not statistically significant (p>0·05).

Conclusions

PET/CT enables more accurate assessment of tumour delineation for NSCLC, therefore improve target coverage in IMRT plan.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Van de Steene, J, Linthout, N, De Mey, Jet al. Definition of gross tumor volume in lung cancer: inter-observer variability. Radiother Oncol 2002; 62: 3749.Google Scholar
2.Seeram, E. Physical Principles of Computed Tomography, 2nd edition. PA: W.B. Saunders company, Philadelphia, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
3.Zhang, QN, Wang, DY, Wang, XHet al. Nonconventional radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Thorac Cancer 2012; 3: 269279.Google Scholar
4.Zhang, ZJ. Technical capacity and clinical application of PET/CT. Chin Med Equipm J 2007; 28: 5960.Google Scholar
5.Chuhr, KJH, Kim, JH, Yoon, DYet al. Additional diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET-CT in detecting retropharyngeal nodal metastases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 141: 633638.Google Scholar
6.Kang, BJ, JH, O, Baik, JHet al. Incidental thyroid uptake on F-18 FDG PET/CT: correlation with ultrasonography and pathology. Ann Nucl Med 2009; 23: 729737.Google Scholar
7.Vansteenkiste, J, Fischer, BM, Dooms, Cet al. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2004; 5: 531540.Google Scholar
8.Hong, R, Halama, J, Bova, Det al. 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 2007; 67: 720726.Google Scholar
9.Hoseok, I, Kim, K, Kim, SJet al. Prognostic value of metabolic volume measured by F-18 FDG PET-CT in patients with esophageal cancer. Thorac Cancer 2012; 3: 255261.Google Scholar
10.Wang, DQ, Chen, JH, Li, BSet al. Influence of FDG PET-CT on the target region and planning of precise and accurate radiotherapy for local advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chin J Radiat Oncol 2011; 20: 172173.Google Scholar
11.Huang, S. Anatomy of SUV standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol 2000; 27: 643646.Google Scholar
12.Vansteenkiste, J, Stroobants, S, Dupont, Pet al. Prognostic importance of the standardized uptake value on FDG PET in NSCLC: an analysis of 125 cases. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 32013206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Erdi, Y, Rosenzweig, K, Erdi, Aet al. Radiotherapy treatment planning for patients with NSCLC using PET. Radiother Oncol 2002; 62: 5160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Menzel, HG, Wambersie, A, Jones, DTLet al. The ICRU report 83: prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). J ICRU 2010; 10: 5559.Google Scholar
15.Graham, MV, Purdy, JA, Enami, BEet al. Clinical dose volume histogram analysis for pneumonitis after 3D treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 323329.Google Scholar
16.Kwa, SL, Lebesque, JV, Theuws, JCet al. Radiation pneumonitis as a function of mean lung dose: an analysis of pooled data from 540 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42: 19.Google Scholar
17.Hirota, S, Tsujino, K, Endo, Met al. Dosimetric predictors of radiation esophagitis in patients treated for non-small lung cancer with carboplatin/paclitaxel/radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 291295.Google Scholar
18.Werner-Wasik, M, Pequignot, E, Leeper, Det al. Predictors of severe esophagitis include use of concurrent chemotherapy, but not the length of irradiated esophagus: a multivariate analysis of patients with lung cancer treated with nonoperative therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48: 689696.Google Scholar
19.Rogerio, L, Michael, S, Michele, TNet al. A phase II trial of combined modality therapy with growth factor support for patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 837840.Google Scholar
20.Kirby, AM, Yarnold, JR, Evans, PMet al. Tumor bed delineation for partial breast and breast boost radiotherapy planned in the prone position: what does MRI add to X-ray CT localization of titanium clips placed in the excision cavity wall? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 12761282.Google Scholar
21.Yin, LJ, Yu, XB, Ren, YGet al. Utilization of PET-CT in target volume delineation for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and atelectasis. Multidiscip Respir Med 2013; 8: 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Musolino, SV. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. Technical Reports Series No. 398 (LWW, 2001), Vienna, Austria, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Deniaud-Alexandre, E, Touboul, E, Lerouge, Det al. Impact of computed tomography and 18Fdeoxyglucose coincidence detection emission tomography image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63: 14321441.Google Scholar
24.Bradley, J, Thorstad, W, Mutic, Set al. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in NSCLC. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 7886.Google Scholar