TY - JOUR
T1 - A prospective study of 18FDG-PET with CT coregistration for radiation treatment planning of lymphomas and other hematologic malignancies
AU - Terezakis, Stephanie A.
AU - Schöder, Heiko
AU - Kowalski, Alexander
AU - McCann, Patrick
AU - Lim, Remy
AU - Turlakov, Alla
AU - Gonen, Mithat
AU - Barker, Chris
AU - Goenka, Anuj
AU - Lovie, Shona
AU - Yahalom, Joachim
PY - 2014/6/1
Y1 - 2014/6/1
N2 - Purpose This prospective single-institution study examined the impact of positron emission tomography (PET) with the use of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and computed tomography (CT) scan radiation treatment planning (TP) on target volume definition in lymphoma. Methods and Materials 118 patients underwent PET/CT TP during June 2007 to May 2009. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured on CT-only and PET/CT studies by radiation oncologists (ROs) and nuclear medicine physicians (NMPs) for 95 patients with positive PET scans. Treatment plans and dose-volume histograms were generated for CT-only and PET/CT for 95 evaluable sites. Paired t test statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for analysis. Results 70 (74%) patients had non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 10 (11%) had Hodgkin lymphoma, 12 (10%) had plasma-cell neoplasm, and 3 (3%) had other hematologic malignancies. Forty-three (45%) presented with relapsed/refractory disease. Forty-five (47%) received no prior chemotherapy. The addition of PET increased GTV as defined by ROs in 38 patients (median, 27%; range, 5%-70%) and decreased GTV in 41 (median, 39.5%; range, 5%-80%). The addition of PET increased GTV as defined by NMPs in 27 patients (median, 26.5%; range, 5%-95%) and decreased GTV in 52 (median, 70%; range, 5%-99%). The intraobserver correlation between CT-GTV and PET-GTV was higher for ROs than for NMPs (0.94, P<.01 vs 0.89, P<.01). On the basis of Bland-Altman plots, the PET-GTVs defined by ROs were larger than those defined by NMPs. On evaluation of clinical TPs, only 4 (4%) patients had inadequate target coverage (D95 <95%) of the PET-GTV defined by NMPs. Conclusions Significant differences between the RO and NMP volumes were identified when PET was coregistered to CT for radiation planning. Despite this, the PET-GTV defined by ROs and NMPs received acceptable prescription dose in nearly all patients. However, given the potential for a marginal miss, consultation with an experienced PET reader is highly encouraged when PET/CT volumes are delineated, particularly for questionable lesions and to assure complete and accurate target volume coverage.
AB - Purpose This prospective single-institution study examined the impact of positron emission tomography (PET) with the use of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and computed tomography (CT) scan radiation treatment planning (TP) on target volume definition in lymphoma. Methods and Materials 118 patients underwent PET/CT TP during June 2007 to May 2009. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured on CT-only and PET/CT studies by radiation oncologists (ROs) and nuclear medicine physicians (NMPs) for 95 patients with positive PET scans. Treatment plans and dose-volume histograms were generated for CT-only and PET/CT for 95 evaluable sites. Paired t test statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for analysis. Results 70 (74%) patients had non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 10 (11%) had Hodgkin lymphoma, 12 (10%) had plasma-cell neoplasm, and 3 (3%) had other hematologic malignancies. Forty-three (45%) presented with relapsed/refractory disease. Forty-five (47%) received no prior chemotherapy. The addition of PET increased GTV as defined by ROs in 38 patients (median, 27%; range, 5%-70%) and decreased GTV in 41 (median, 39.5%; range, 5%-80%). The addition of PET increased GTV as defined by NMPs in 27 patients (median, 26.5%; range, 5%-95%) and decreased GTV in 52 (median, 70%; range, 5%-99%). The intraobserver correlation between CT-GTV and PET-GTV was higher for ROs than for NMPs (0.94, P<.01 vs 0.89, P<.01). On the basis of Bland-Altman plots, the PET-GTVs defined by ROs were larger than those defined by NMPs. On evaluation of clinical TPs, only 4 (4%) patients had inadequate target coverage (D95 <95%) of the PET-GTV defined by NMPs. Conclusions Significant differences between the RO and NMP volumes were identified when PET was coregistered to CT for radiation planning. Despite this, the PET-GTV defined by ROs and NMPs received acceptable prescription dose in nearly all patients. However, given the potential for a marginal miss, consultation with an experienced PET reader is highly encouraged when PET/CT volumes are delineated, particularly for questionable lesions and to assure complete and accurate target volume coverage.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899931009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899931009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.006
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 24726287
AN - SCOPUS:84899931009
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 89
SP - 376
EP - 383
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 2
ER -