Comparison of the gross target volume based on diagnostic PET/CT for primary esophageal cancer
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2020.04.008
- VernacularTitle:诊断PET-CT用于食管癌原发肿瘤大体肿瘤体积勾画的比较研究
- Author:
Jingzhen SHI
1
;
Fengxiang LI
;
Jianbin LI
;
Yingjie ZHANG
;
Yanluan GUO
;
Wei WANG
;
Jinzhi WANG
Author Information
1. 山东大学齐鲁医学院临床医学院，济南 250012[现在山东大学附属山东省肿瘤医院 山东省肿瘤防治研究院(山东省肿瘤医院)山东第一医科大学(山东省医学科学院)放疗科，济南 250117]
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2020;40(4):290-295
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare positional and volumetric differences between the gross target volumes (GTV) delineated on three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) referencing 18F-FDG PET/CT and the GTV on the deformed image derived from 3D-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary thoracic esophageal cancer (EC). Methods:Seventy-two patients underwent chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. All the patients sequentially underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT scans for diagnosis and 3D-CT scans for simulation. The GTV 3D was delineated on 3D-CT without referencing 18F-FDG PET/CT. The GTV PET-ref was delineated on 3D-CT referencing 18F-FDG PET/CT. The GTV PET-regwas delineated on the deformed image derived from 3D-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT by MIM deformable registration software. The differences in position, volume, length, conformity index (CI), and degree of inclusion (DI) of target volumes were compared, respectively. Results:The median volume of GTV 3D, GTV PET-ref, GTV PET-reg were 44.90, 40.36 and 41.15 cm 3, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the volumes of any two targets. The mean lengths of GTV 3D, GTV PET-ref, GTV PET-reg were 8.54, 9.29 and 8.38 cm, respectively. The length of GTV PET-ref was longer than that of GTV 3D ( t=2.134, P<0.05). The median DIs of GTV PET-ref, GTV PET-regin GTV 3D were 0.86, 0.82( Z=-2.741, P<0.05), and that of GTV 3D in GTV PET-ref, GTV PET-reg were 0.87, 0.84 ( Z=-1.429, P<0.05). The median CIs of GTV 3D in GTV PET-ref and GTV PET-reg were 0.72, 0.68 ( Z=2.756, P<0.05), and the difference was significant. The CIs of GTV 3D and GTV PET-ref, GTV 3D and GTV PET-reg, GTV PET-ref and GTV PET-reg had significant negative correlation with the distance of target centers. Conclusions:There was no significant difference between GTV contoured on three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) referencing 18F-FDG PET/CT and the GTV on the deformed image derived from 3D-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT either in volume size or in spatial position. Therefore, it is recommended that radiation oncologists can refer to the recent diagnostic PET/CT when delineating the gross target volume for primary thoracic esophageal cancer.
