A comparative study of three-dimensional, four-dimensional, and cone beam contrast-enhanced computed tomography in measurement of the normal thickness of the esophageal wall
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2016.11.009
- VernacularTitle:基于3 DCT、4 DCT和CBCT增强扫描测量正常食管壁厚度的研究
- Author:
Chaoyue HU
;
Jianbin LI
;
Jinzhi WANG
;
Qian SHAO
;
Wei WANG
;
Yanluan GUO
;
Min XU
;
Wenwu LI
;
Yong HUANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Tomography,X-ray computed,three-dimensional;
Tomography,X-ray computed,four-dimensional;
Tomography,X-ray computed,cone beam;
Normal oesophagus;
Wall thickness
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
2016;25(11):1187-1191
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the normal thickness of the esophageal wall measured by contrast?enhanced three?dimensional ( 3DCT ) , four?dimensional ( 4DCT ) , and cone beam computed tomography ( CBCT) ,and to provide a basis for target volume delineation in esophageal cancer. Methods From 2009 to 2016,thoracic contrast?enhanced 3DCT and 4DCT simulations were performed in 50 patients with lung cancer or metastatic lung cancer. Contrast?enhanced CBCT scans were acquired during the first three?dimensional conformal radiotherapy. The normal esophageal wall was contoured on 3DCT images, the end?exhalation phase of 4DCT images ( 4DCT50 ) , the maximum intensity projection of 4DCT images (4DCTMIP),and CBCT images. The wall thickness was measured on each segment and the average thickness of esophageal wall was obtained. Comparison of the thickness of a fixed segment of esophageal wall between different CT images was made by paired t test. Comparison of thickness on the same type of CT images between different segments of esophageal wall was made by one?way analysis of variance. Results For the thoracic and intra?abdominal segments,there was no significant difference in the thickness of esophageal wall between 3DCT and 4DCT50 images ( P= 0?056?0?550 );however, the thickness of esophageal wall was significantly smaller on 3DCT images than on 4DCTMIP or CBCT images (P=0?000?0?004).For the upper and middle thoracic segments,the thickness of esophageal wall was significantly larger on CBCT images than on 4DCTMIP images ( P= 0?008, P= 0?001 ) . On 3DCT, 4DCT50 , and 4DCTMIP images, the thickness of esophageal wall was significantly larger in the lower thoracic segment than in the upper or middle thoracic segments ( P=0.008~0?041);the intra?abdominal segment had a significantly larger thickness of esophageal wall than the thoracic segments ( all P=0?000 ) . There was no significant difference in wall thickness on CBCT images between three thoracic segments ( P=0.088~0?945) . Conclusions A uniform criterion can be adopted to judge the normal thickness of esophageal wall in gross tumor volume ( GTV ) delineation on 3DCT and 4DCT50 images for thoracic esophageal cancer. However,caution should be taken when 5 mm is used as a criterion for normal thickness of esophageal wall in GTV delineation on 4DCTMIP and CBCT images.
