Impact of Manual and Automated Interpretation of Fused PET/CT Data on Esophageal Target Definitions in Radiation Planning
Abstract
Purpose: We compare CT-only based esophageal tumor definition with two PET/CT based methods: (1) manual contouring and (2) a semiautomated method based on specific thresholds. Methods and Materials: Patients with esophageal cancer treated at Brigham and Women's Hospital from 2003 to 2006 were identified. CT-based tumor volumes were compared with manual PET/CT-based volumes and semiautomated PET-based tumor volumes. Differences were scored as (1) minor if the superior or inferior extent of the primary tumor (or both) differed by 1-2 cm and (2) major if the difference was > 2 cm or if different noncontiguous nodal regions were identified as being grossly involved. Results: Comparing CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTVs) to manually defined PET/CT-based GTVs, use of PET changed volumes for 21 of 25 (84%) patients: 12 patients (48%) exhibited minor differences, whereas for 9 patients (36%), the differences were major. For 4 (16%) patients, the major difference was due to discrepancy in celiac or distant mediastinal lymph node involvement. Use of automated PET volumes changed the manual PET length in 14 patients (56%): 8 minor and 6 major. Conclusions: The use of PET/CT in treatment planning for esophageal cancer can affect target definition. Two PET-based techniques can also produce significantlymore »
- Authors:
-
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Womens' Hospital, Boston, MA (United States)
- Publication Date:
- OSTI Identifier:
- 21172527
- Resource Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal Name:
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
- Additional Journal Information:
- Journal Volume: 72; Journal Issue: 5; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.061; PII: S0360-3016(08)03309-9; Copyright (c) 2008 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0360-3016
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
- Subject:
- 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CARCINOMAS; HOSPITALS; LYMPH NODES; MANUALS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIOTHERAPY
Citation Formats
Hong, Theodore S., Killoran, Joseph H, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brigham and Womens' Hospital, Boston, MA, Mamede, Marcelo, and Mamon, Harvey J. Impact of Manual and Automated Interpretation of Fused PET/CT Data on Esophageal Target Definitions in Radiation Planning. United States: N. p., 2008.
Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.061.
Hong, Theodore S., Killoran, Joseph H, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brigham and Womens' Hospital, Boston, MA, Mamede, Marcelo, & Mamon, Harvey J. Impact of Manual and Automated Interpretation of Fused PET/CT Data on Esophageal Target Definitions in Radiation Planning. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.061
Hong, Theodore S., Killoran, Joseph H, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brigham and Womens' Hospital, Boston, MA, Mamede, Marcelo, and Mamon, Harvey J. 2008.
"Impact of Manual and Automated Interpretation of Fused PET/CT Data on Esophageal Target Definitions in Radiation Planning". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.061.
@article{osti_21172527,
title = {Impact of Manual and Automated Interpretation of Fused PET/CT Data on Esophageal Target Definitions in Radiation Planning},
author = {Hong, Theodore S. and Killoran, Joseph H and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brigham and Womens' Hospital, Boston, MA and Mamede, Marcelo and Mamon, Harvey J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: We compare CT-only based esophageal tumor definition with two PET/CT based methods: (1) manual contouring and (2) a semiautomated method based on specific thresholds. Methods and Materials: Patients with esophageal cancer treated at Brigham and Women's Hospital from 2003 to 2006 were identified. CT-based tumor volumes were compared with manual PET/CT-based volumes and semiautomated PET-based tumor volumes. Differences were scored as (1) minor if the superior or inferior extent of the primary tumor (or both) differed by 1-2 cm and (2) major if the difference was > 2 cm or if different noncontiguous nodal regions were identified as being grossly involved. Results: Comparing CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTVs) to manually defined PET/CT-based GTVs, use of PET changed volumes for 21 of 25 (84%) patients: 12 patients (48%) exhibited minor differences, whereas for 9 patients (36%), the differences were major. For 4 (16%) patients, the major difference was due to discrepancy in celiac or distant mediastinal lymph node involvement. Use of automated PET volumes changed the manual PET length in 14 patients (56%): 8 minor and 6 major. Conclusions: The use of PET/CT in treatment planning for esophageal cancer can affect target definition. Two PET-based techniques can also produce significantly different tumor volumes in a large percentage of patients. Further investigations to clarify the optimal use of PET/CT data in treatment planning are warranted.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.061},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/21172527},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
issn = {0360-3016},
number = 5,
volume = 72,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Dec 01 00:00:00 EST 2008},
month = {Mon Dec 01 00:00:00 EST 2008}
}