+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Geometrical differences in target volumes based on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography maximum intensity projection images of primary thoracic esophageal cancer



Geometrical differences in target volumes based on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography maximum intensity projection images of primary thoracic esophageal cancer



Diseases of the Esophagus 27(8): 744-750



The objective of the study was to compare geometrical differences of target volumes based on four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) maximum intensity projection (MIP) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) images of primary thoracic esophageal cancer for radiation treatment. Twenty-one patients with thoracic esophageal cancer sequentially underwent contrast-enhanced three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT), 4DCT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT thoracic simulation scans during normal free breathing. The internal gross target volume defined as IGTVMIP was obtained by contouring on MIP images. The gross target volumes based on PET/CT images (GTVPET ) were determined with nine different standardized uptake value (SUV) thresholds and manual contouring: SUV≥2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 (SUVn); ≥20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40% of the maximum (percentages of SUVmax, SUVn%). The differences in volume ratio (VR), conformity index (CI), and degree of inclusion (DI) between IGTVMIP and GTVPET were investigated. The mean centroid distance between GTVPET and IGTVMIP ranged from 4.98 mm to 6.53 mm. The VR ranged from 0.37 to 1.34, being significantly (P<0.05) closest to 1 at SUV2.5 (0.94), SUV20% (1.07), or manual contouring (1.10). The mean CI ranged from 0.34 to 0.58, being significantly closest to 1 (P<0.05) at SUV2.0 (0.55), SUV2.5 (0.56), SUV20% (0.56), SUV25% (0.53), or manual contouring (0.58). The mean DI of GTVPET in IGTVMIP ranged from 0.61 to 0.91, and the mean DI of IGTVMIP in GTVPET ranged from 0.34 to 0.86. The SUV threshold setting of SUV2.5, SUV20% or manual contouring yields the best tumor VR and CI with internal-gross target volume contoured on MIP of 4DCT dataset, but 3DPET/CT and 4DCT MIP could not replace each other for motion encompassing target volume delineation for radiation treatment.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053404822

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24915760

DOI: 10.1111/dote.12247


Related references

Comparison of primary tumour volumes delineated on four-dimensional computed tomography maximum intensity projection and (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography images of non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 59(5): 623-630, 2015

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. Diseases of the Esophagus 23(6): 493-501, 2010

Contrast-enhanced [18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology: tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Imaging 14: 10, 2014

Comparison of standardized uptake value-based positron emission tomography and computed tomography target volumes in esophageal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 78(4): 1057-1063, 2010

Defining target volumes for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of early-stage lung tumours: a comparison of three-dimensional 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical Oncology ) 24(6): E71, 2012

The Comparison of Computed Tomography Perfusion, Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Detection of Primary Esophageal Carcinoma. Medical Principles and Practice 25(3): 254-259, 2016

A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, multidetector row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Annals of Surgery 250(6): 957-963, 2009

Comparison of Primary Target Volumes Based on 4-Dimensional CT and Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography CT Images of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*biology*physics 90(1): S617-S618, 2014

11C-Methionine Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Versus 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Evaluation of Residual or Recurrent World Health Organization Grades II and III Meningioma After Treatment. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 42(4): 517-521, 2018

A Patient with a Benign and a Malignant Primary Pulmonary Meningioma: An Evaluation with 18F Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography with Iodinated Contrast. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine 34(1): 45-47, 2019

Is combined 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography superior to positron emission tomography or computed tomography alone for diagnosis, staging and restaging of pancreatic lesions?. Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica 70(4): 331-338, 2007

Primary tumor maximum standardized uptake value measured on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography is a prognostic value for survival in bile duct and gallbladder cancer. Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 62(4): 227-233, 2013

Diagnostic and prognostic value of preoperative 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional computed tomography. Intestinal Research 15(2): 208-214, 2017

Characterization of pulmonary lesions in patients with suspected lung cancer: computed tomography versus [¹⁸F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Imaging 12: 437-446, 2012

Clinical impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan/computed tomography in comparison with computed tomography on the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 23(3): 275-281, 2011