ScholarLens Back to search
2014•Diseases of the EsophagusRequires access

Geometrical differences in target volumes based on18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography maximum intensity projection images of primary thoracic esophageal cancer

Yongxian Guo, J. Li, W. Wang, Y. Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Y. Duan, D. Shang, Zi-Ming Fu

Open publisher page 6 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Contouring, Nuclear medicine, Medicine, Maximum intensity projection, Positron emission tomography, Esophageal cancer, Tomography, Computed tomography

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Geometrical differences in target volumes based on18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography maximum intensity projection images of primary thoracic esophageal cancer — Research Paper | ScholarLens