2015•Zhonghua fangshe zhongliuxue zazhiRequires access

A comparative study of planning target volumes based on three-dimensional computed tomography, four-dimensional computed tomography, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography in thoracic esophageal cancer

Yanluan Guo, Jianbin Li, Yankang Li, Wei Wang, Zhifang Ma, Liang Chaoqian, Jun Xing

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To investigate the differences in position and volume between planning target volumes (PTV) based on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) images with an standardized uptake value (SUV) no less than 2.5, 20% of the maximum SUV (SUVmax), or 25% of SUVmax, three-dimensional (3D) CT, and four-dimensional (4D) CT in thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods Eighteen patients with thoracic esophageal cancer sequentially received chest 3DCT, 4DCT, and[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PTV3D was obtained by conventional expansion of 3DCT images; PTV4D was obtained by fusion of target volumes from 10 phases of 4DCT images. The internal gross tumor volumes (IGTV), IGTVPET2.5, IGTVPET20%, and IGTVPET25%, were generated based on PET-CT images with an SUV no less than 2.5, 20% of SUVmax, and 25% of SUVmax, respectively. These IGTVs were expanded longitudinally by 3.5 cm and radically by 1 cm to make PTVPET2.5, PTVPET20%, and PTVPET25%, respectively. Results PTV3D was significantly larger than both PTV4D and PTVPET(P=0.000-0.044), while there was no significant difference between PTV4D and PTVPET(P=0.216-0.633). The mutual degrees of inclusion (DIs) between PTV3D and PTV4D were 0.70 and 0.95, respectively, which were negatively correlated with 3D-Vector (P=0.039). The mutual DIs between PTVPET2.5, PTVPET20%, and PTVPET25% were 0.74, 0.72, 0.78, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.70, respectively, which showed no correlation with 3D-Vector (P=0.150-0.822). The mutual DIs between PTV3D and PTVPET were 0.86, 0.84, 0.88, 0.63, 0.67, and 0.59, respectively. Conclusions It is difficult to achieve complete volumetric overlap of PTVs based on 3DCT, 4DCT and PET-CT in thoracic esophageal cancer due to different target volume information. PET scan during free breathing should be used with caution to generate PTVs in thoracic esophageal cancer. Key words: Tomography, X-ray computed, three-dimensional; Tomography, X-ray computed, four-dimensional; Tomography, positron-emission, fluorodeoxyglucose; Planning target volume; Esophageal neoplasms/radiotherapy

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To investigate the differences in position and volume between planning target volumes (PTV) based on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) images with an standardized uptake value (SUV) no less than 2.5, 20% of the maximum SUV (SUVmax), or 25% of SUVmax, three-dimensional (3D) CT, and four-dimensional (4D) CT in thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods Eighteen patients with thoracic esophageal cancer sequentially received chest 3DCT, 4DCT, and[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PTV3D was obtained by conventional expansion of 3DCT images; PTV4D was obtained by fusion of target volumes from 10 phases of 4DCT images. The internal gross tumor volumes (IGTV), IGTVPET2.5, IGTVPET20%, and IGTVPET25%, were generated based on PET-CT images with an SUV no less than 2.5, 20% of SUVmax, and 25% of SUVmax, respectively. These IGTVs were expanded longitudinally by 3.5 cm and radically by 1 cm to make PTVPET2.5, PTVPET20%, and PTVPET25%, respectively. Results PTV3D was significantly larger than both PTV4D and PTVPET(P=0.000-0.044), while there was no significant difference between PTV4D and PTVPET(P=0.216-0.633). The mutual degrees of inclusion (DIs) between PTV3D and PTV4D were 0.70 and 0.95, respectively, which were negatively correlated with 3D-Vector (P=0.039). The mutual DIs between PTVPET2.5, PTVPET20%, and PTVPET25% were 0.74, 0.72, 0.78, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.70, respectively, which showed no correlation with 3D-Vector (P=0.150-0.822). The mutual DIs between PTV3D and PTVPET were 0.86, 0.84, 0.88, 0.63, 0.67, and 0.59, respectively. Conclusions It is difficult to achieve complete volumetric overlap of PTVs based on 3DCT, 4DCT and PET-CT in thoracic esophageal cancer due to different target volume information. PET scan during free breathing should be used with caution to generate PTVs in thoracic esophageal cancer. Key words: Tomography, X-ray computed, three-dimensional; Tomography, X-ray computed, four-dimensional; Tomography, positron-emission, fluorodeoxyglucose; Planning target volume; Esophageal neoplasms/radiotherapy

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

Objective To investigate the differences in position and volume between planning target volumes (PTV) based on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) images with an standardized uptake value (SUV) no less than 2.5, 20% of the maximum SUV (SUVmax), or 25% of SUVmax, three-dimensional (3D) CT, and four-dimensional (4D) CT in thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods Eighteen patients with thoracic esophageal cancer sequentially received chest 3DCT, 4DCT, and[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PTV3D was obtained by conventional expansion of 3DCT images; PTV4D was obtained by fusion of target volumes from 10 phases of 4DCT images. The internal gross tumor volumes (IGTV), IGTVPET2.5, IGTVPET20%, and IGTVPET25%, were generated based on PET-CT images with an SUV no less than 2.5, 20% of SUVmax, and 25% of SUVmax, respectively. These IGTVs were expanded longitudinally by 3.5 cm and radically by 1 cm to make PTVPET2.5, PTVPET20%, and PTVPET25%, respectively. Results PTV3D was significantly larger than both PTV4D and PTVPET(P=0.000-0.044), while there was no significant difference between PTV4D and PTVPET(P=0.216-0.633). The mutual degrees of inclusion (DIs) between PTV3D and PTV4D were 0.70 and 0.95, respectively, which were negatively correlated with 3D-Vector (P=0.039). The mutual DIs between PTVPET2.5, PTVPET20%, and PTVPET25% were 0.74, 0.72, 0.78, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.70, respectively, which showed no correlation with 3D-Vector (P=0.150-0.822). The mutual DIs between PTV3D and PTVPET were 0.86, 0.84, 0.88, 0.63, 0.67, and 0.59, respectively. Conclusions It is difficult to achieve complete volumetric overlap of PTVs based on 3DCT, 4DCT and PET-CT in thoracic esophageal cancer due to different target volume information. PET scan during free breathing should be used with caution to generate PTVs in thoracic esophageal cancer. Key words: Tomography, X-ray computed, three-dimensional; Tomography, X-ray computed, four-dimensional; Tomography, positron-emission, fluorodeoxyglucose; Planning target volume; Esophageal neoplasms/radiotherapy

Key concepts: Nuclear medicine, Esophageal cancer, Positron emission tomography, Standardized uptake value, Computed tomography, Tomography, Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography, Medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A comparative study of planning target volumes based on three-dimensional computed tomography, four-dimensional computed tomography, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography in thoracic esophageal cancer — Research Paper | ScholarLens