K.J. Carson

18F-FDG PET-CT SIMULATION FOR NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER: EFFECT IN PATIENTS ALREADY STAGED BY PET-CT

PURPOSE Positron emission tomography (PET), in addition to computed tomography (CT), has an effect in target volume definition for radical radiotherapy (RT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In previously PET-CT staged patients with NSCLC, we assessed the effect of using an additional planning PET-CT scan for gross tumor volume (GTV) definition. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 28 patients with Stage IA-IIIB NSCLC were enrolled. All patients had undergone staging PET-CT to ensure suitability for radical RT. Of the 28 patients, 14 received induction chemotherapy. In place of a RT planning CT scan, patients underwent scanning on a PET-CT scanner. In a virtual planning study, four oncologists independently delineated the GTV on the CT scan alone and then on the PET-CT scan. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were assessed using the concordance index (CI), and the results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. RESULTS PET-CT improved the CI between observers when defining the GTV using the PET-CT images compared with using CT alone for matched cases (median CI, 0.57 for CT and 0.64 for PET-CT, p = .032). The median of the mean percentage of volume change from GTV(CT) to GTV(FUSED) was -5.21% for the induction chemotherapy group and 18.88% for the RT-alone group. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, this was significantly different (p = .001). CONCLUSION PET-CT RT planning scan, in addition to a staging PET-CT scan, reduces interobserver variability in GTV definition for NSCLC. The GTV size with PET-CT compared with CT in the RT-alone group increased and was reduced in the induction chemotherapy group.

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography–Based Radiotherapy Target Volume Definition in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Delineation by Radiation Oncologists vs. Joint Outlining With a PET Radiologist?

PURPOSE (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has benefits in target volume (TV) definition in radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, an optimal protocol for TV delineation has not been determined. We investigate volumetric and positional variation in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation using a planning PET/CT among three radiation oncologists and a PET radiologist. METHODS AND MATERIALS RTP PET/CT scans were performed on 28 NSCLC patients (Stage IA-IIIB) of which 14 patients received prior induction chemotherapy. Three radiation oncologists and one PET radiologist working with a fourth radiation oncologist independently delineated the GTV on CT alone (GTV(CT)) and on fused PET/CT images (GTV(PETCT)). The mean percentage volume change (PVC) between GTV(CT) and GTV(PETCT) for the radiation oncologists and the PVC between GTV(CT) and GTV(PETCT) for the PET radiologist were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Concordance index (CI) was used to assess both positional and volume change between GTV(CT) and GTV(PETCT) in a single measurement. RESULTS For all patients, a significant difference in PVC from GTV(CT) to GTV(PETCT) exists between the radiation oncologist (median, 5.9%), and the PET radiologist (median, -0.4%, p = 0.001). However, no significant difference in median concordance index (comparing GTV(CT) and GTV(FUSED) for individual cases) was observed (PET radiologist = 0.73; radiation oncologists = 0.66; p = 0.088). CONCLUSIONS Percentage volume changes from GTV(CT) to GTV(PETCT) were lower for the PET radiologist than for the radiation oncologists, suggesting a lower impact of PET/CT in TV delineation for the PET radiologist than for the oncologists. Guidelines are needed to standardize the use of PET/CT for TV delineation in RTP.

Automated MAP-MRF EM labelling for volume determination in PET

An automated, unsupervised Maximum a Posterior - Markov Random Field Expectation Maximisation (MAP- MRF EM) Labelling technique, based upon a Bayesian framework, for volume of interest (VOI) determination in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imagery is proposed. The segmentation technique incorporates MAP-MRF modelling into a mixture modelling approach using the EM algorithm, to consider both the structural and statistical nature of the data. The performance of the algorithm has been assessed on a set of PET phantom data. Investigations revealed improvements over a simple statistical approach using the EM algorithm, and improvements over a MAP- MRF approach, using the output from the EM algorithm as an initial estimate. Improvement is also shown over a standard semi-automated thresholding method, and an automated Fuzzy Hidden Markov Chain (FHMC) approach; particularly for smaller object volume determination, as the FHMC method loses some spatial correlation. A deblurring pre-processing stage was also found to provide improved results.

Conventional 3D staging PET/CT in CT simulation for lung cancer: impact of rigid and deformable target volume alignments for radiotherapy treatment planning

OBJECTIVE Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans can improve target definition in radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As staging PET/CT scans are increasingly available, we evaluated different methods for co-registration of staging PET/CT data to radiotherapy simulation (RTP) scans. METHODS 10 patients underwent staging PET/CT followed by RTP PET/CT. On both scans, gross tumour volumes (GTVs) were delineated using CT (GTV(CT)) and PET display settings. Four PET-based contours (manual delineation, two threshold methods and a source-to-background ratio method) were delineated. The CT component of the staging scan was co-registered using both rigid and deformable techniques to the CT component of RTP PET/CT. Subsequently rigid registration and deformation warps were used to transfer PET and CT contours from the staging scan to the RTP scan. Dices similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to assess the registration accuracy of staging-based GTVs following both registration methods with the GTVs delineated on the RTP PET/CT scan. RESULTS When the GTV(CT) delineated on the staging scan after both rigid registration and deformation was compared with the GTV(CT)on the RTP scan, a significant improvement in overlap (registration) using deformation was observed (mean DSC 0.66 for rigid registration and 0.82 for deformable registration, p = 0.008). A similar comparison for PET contours revealed no significant improvement in overlap with the use of deformable registration. CONCLUSIONS No consistent improvements in similarity measures were observed when deformable registration was used for transferring PET-based contours from a staging PET/CT. This suggests that currently the use of rigid registration remains the most appropriate method for RTP in NSCLC.