These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [F18] FDG-PET/CT for manual or semiautomated GTV delineation of the primary tumor for radiation therapy planning in patients with esophageal cancer: is it useful?
    Author: Walter F, Jell C, Zollner B, Andrae C, Gerum S, Ilhan H, Belka C, Niyazi M, Roeder F.
    Journal: Strahlenther Onkol; 2021 Sep; 197(9):780-790. PubMed ID: 33104815.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Target volume definition of the primary tumor in esophageal cancer is usually based on computed tomography (CT) supported by endoscopy and/or endoscopic ultrasound and can be difficult given the low soft-tissue contrast of CT resulting in large interobserver variability. We evaluated the value of a dedicated planning [F18] FDG-Positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) for harmonization of gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the feasibility of semiautomated structures for planning purposes in a large cohort. METHODS: Patients receiving a dedicated planning [F18] FDG-PET/CT (06/2011-03/2016) were included. GTV was delineated on CT and on PET/CT (GTVCT and GTVPET/CT, respectively) by three independent radiation oncologists. Interobserver variability was evaluated by comparison of mean GTV and mean tumor lengths, and via Sørensen-Dice coefficients (DSC) for spatial overlap. Semiautomated volumes were constructed based on PET/CT using fixed standardized uptake values (SUV) thresholds (SUV30, 35, and 40) or background- and metabolically corrected PERCIST-TLG and Schaefer algorithms, and compared to manually delineated volumes. RESULTS: 45 cases were evaluated. Mean GTVCT and GTVPET/CT were 59.2/58.0 ml, 65.4/64.1 ml, and 60.4/59.2 ml for observers A-C. No significant difference between CT- and PET/CT-based delineation was found comparing the mean volumes or lengths. Mean Dice coefficients on CT and PET/CT were 0.79/0.77, 0.81/0.78, and 0.8/0.78 for observer pairs AB, AC, and BC, respectively, with no significant differences. Mean GTV volumes delineated semiautomatically with SUV30/SUV35/SUV40/Schaefer's and PERCIST-TLG threshold were 69.1/23.9/18.8/18.6 and 70.9 ml. The best concordance of a semiautomatically delineated structure with the manually delineated GTVCT/GTVPET/CT was observed for PERCIST-TLG. CONCLUSION: We were not able to show that the integration of PET/CT for GTV delineation of the primary tumor resulted in reduced interobserver variability. The PERCIST-TLG algorithm seemed most promising compared to other thresholds for further evaluation of semiautomated delineation of esophageal cancer.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]