Search

Background and Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the geometrical differences in and metabolic parameters of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) performed before and during radiotherapy (RT) for patients with esophageal cancer based on the three-dimensional CT (3DCT) medium and explore whether the high signal area derived from DW-MRI can be used as a tool for an individualized definition of the volume in need of dose escalation for esophageal squamous cancer. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients with esophageal squamous cancer sequentially underwent repeated 3DCT, 18F-FDG PET-CT, and enhanced MRI before the initiation of RT and after the 15th fraction. All images were fused with 3DCT images through deformable registration. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated based on PET Edge on the first and second PET-CT images and defined as GTVPETpre and GTVPETdur, respectively. GTVDWIpre and GTVDWIdur were delineated on the first and second DWI and corresponding T2-weighted MRI (T2W-MRI)-fused images. The maximum, mean, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVs; SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively); metabolic tumor volume (MTV); and total lesion glycolysis(TLG) and its relative changes were calculated automatically on PET. Similarly, the minimum and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC; ADCmin and ADCmean) and its relative changes were measured manually using ADC maps. Results: The volume of GTVCT exhibited a significant positive correlation with that of GTVPET and GTVDWI (both p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in both ADCs and 18F-FDG PET metabolic parameters before and during RT (both p < 0.001). No significant correlation was observed between SUVs and ADCs before and during RT (p = 0.072–0.944) and between ∆ADCs and ∆SUVs (p = 0.238–0.854). The conformity index and degree of inclusion of GTVPETpre to GTVDWIpre were significantly higher than those of GTVPETdur to GTVDWIdur (both p < 0.001). The maximum diameter shrinkage rate (∆LDDWI) (24%) and the tumor volume shrinkage rate (VRRDWI) (60%) based on DW-MRI during RT were significantly greater than the corresponding PET-based ∆LDPET (14%) and VRRPET (41%) rates (p = 0.017 and 0.000, respectively). Conclusion: Based on the medium of CT images, there are significant differences in spatial position, biometabolic characteristics, and the tumor shrinkage rate for GTVs derived from 18F-FDG PET-CT and DW-MRI before and during RT for esophageal squamous cancer. Further studies are needed to determine if DW-MRI will be used as tool for an individualized definition of the volume in need of dose escalation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the geometrical differences in and metabolic parameters of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) performed before and during radiotherapy (RT) for patients with esophageal cancer based on the three-dimensional CT (3DCT) medium and explore whether the high signal area derived from DW-MRI can be used as a tool for an individualized definition of the volume in need of dose escalation for esophageal squamous cancer.Materials and MethodsThirty-two patients with esophageal squamous cancer sequentially underwent repeated 3DCT, 18F-FDG PET-CT, and enhanced MRI before the initiation of RT and after the 15th fraction. All images were fused with 3DCT images through deformable registration. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated based on PET Edge on the first and second PET-CT images and defined as GTVPETpre and GTVPETdur, respectively. GTVDWIpre and GTVDWIdur were delineated on the first and second DWI and corresponding T2-weighted MRI (T2W-MRI)-fused images. The maximum, mean, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVs; SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively); metabolic tumor volume (MTV); and total lesion glycolysis(TLG) and its relative changes were calculated automatically on PET. Similarly, the minimum and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC; ADCmin and ADCmean) and its relative changes were measured manually using ADC maps.ResultsThe volume of GTVCT exhibited a significant positive correlation with that of GTVPET and GTVDWI (both p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in both ADCs and 18F-FDG PET metabolic parameters before and during RT (both p < 0.001). No significant correlation was observed between SUVs and ADCs before and during RT (p = 0.072–0.944) and between ∆ADCs and ∆SUVs (p = 0.238–0.854). The conformity index and degree of inclusion of GTVPETpre to GTVDWIpre were significantly higher than those of GTVPETdur to GTVDWIdur (both p < 0.001). The maximum diameter shrinkage rate (∆LDDWI) (24%) and the tumor volume shrinkage rate (VRRDWI) (60%) based on DW-MRI during RT were significantly greater than the corresponding PET-based ∆LDPET (14%) and VRRPET (41%) rates (p = 0.017 and 0.000, respectively).ConclusionBased on the medium of CT images, there are significant differences in spatial position, biometabolic characteristics, and the tumor shrinkage rate for GTVs derived from 18F-FDG PET-CT and DW-MRI before and during RT for esophageal squamous cancer. Further studies are needed to determine if DW-MRI will be used as tool for an individualized definition of the volume in need of dose escalation.

BackgroundClinically, many esophageal cancer patients who planned for radiation therapy have already undergone diagnostic Positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging, but it remains unclear whether these imaging results can be used to delineate the gross target volume (GTV) of the primary tumor for thoracic esophageal cancer (EC).MethodsSeventy-two patients diagnosed with thoracic EC had undergone prior PET/CT for diagnosis and three-dimensional CT (3DCT) for simulation. The GTV3D was contoured on the 3DCT image without referencing the PET/CT image. The GTVPET-ref was contoured on the 3DCT image referencing the PET/CT image. The GTVPET-reg was contoured on the deformed registration image derived from 3DCT and PET/CT. Differences in the position, volume, length, conformity index (CI), and degree of inclusion (DI) among the target volumes were determined.ResultsThe centroid distance in the three directions between two different GTVs showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). No significant difference was found among the groups in the tumor volume (P > 0.05). The median DI values of the GTVPET-reg and GTVPET-ref in the GTV3D were 0.82 and 0.86, respectively (P = 0.006). The median CI values of the GTV3D in the GTVPET-reg and GTVPET-ref were 0.68 and 0.72, respectively (P = 0.006).ConclusionsPET/CT can be used to optimize the definition of the target volume in EC. However, no significant difference was found between the GTVs delineated based on visual referencing or deformable registration whether using the volume or position. So, in the absence of planning PET–CT images, it is also feasible to delineate the GTV of primary thoracic EC with reference to the diagnostic PET–CT image.

Background: Clinically, many esophageal cancer patients who planned for radiation therapy have already undergone diagnostic Positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging, but it remains unclear whether these imaging results can be used to delineate the gross target volume (GTV) of the primary tumor for thoracic esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: Seventy-two patients diagnosed with thoracic EC had undergone prior PET/CT for diagnosis and three-dimensional CT (3DCT) for simulation. The GTV3D was contoured on the 3DCT image without referencing the PET/CT image. The GTVPET-ref was contoured on the 3DCT image referencing the PET/CT image. The GTVPET-reg was contoured on the deformed registration image derived from 3DCT and PET/CT. Differences in the position, volume, length, conformity index (CI), and degree of inclusion (DI) among the target volumes were determined. Results: The centroid distance in the three directions between two different GTVs showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). No significant difference was found among the groups in the tumor volume (P > 0.05). The median DI values of the GTVPET-reg and GTVPET-ref in the GTV3D were 0.82 and 0.86, respectively (P = 0.006). The median CI values of the GTV3D in the GTVPET-reg and GTVPET-ref were 0.68 and 0.72, respectively (P = 0.006). Conclusions: PET/CT can be used to optimize the definition of the target volume in EC. However, no significant difference was found between the GTVs delineated based on visual referencing or deformable registration whether using the volume or position. So, in the absence of planning PET–CT images, it is also feasible to delineate the GTV of primary thoracic EC with reference to the diagnostic PET–CT image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]