Abstract: PURPOSE: To derive guidelines for the need to use positron emission tomography (PET) for delineation of the primary tumor (PT) according to its anatomical location in the lung. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 22 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, thoracic X-ray computed tomography (CT) and PET were performed. Eleven radiation oncologists delineated the PT on the CT and on the CT-PET registered scans. The PTs were classified into two groups. In Group I patients, the PT was surrounded by lung or visceral pleura, without venous invasion, without extension to chest wall or the mediastinum over more than one quarter of its surface. In Group II patients, the PT invaded the hilar region, heart, great vessels, pericardium, mediastinum over more than one quarter of its surface and/or associated with atelectasis. A comparison of interobserver variability for each group was performed and expressed as a local standard deviation. RESULTS: The comparison of delineations showed a good reproducibility for Group I, with an average SD of 0.4 cm on CT and an average SD of 0.3 cm on CT-PET (p = 0.1628). There was also a significant improvement with CT-PET for Group II, with an average SD of 1.3 cm on CT and SD of 0.4 cm on CT-PET (p = 0.0003). The improvement was mainly located at the atelectasis/tumor interface. At the tumor/lung and tumor/hilum interfaces, the observer variation was similar with both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Using PET for PT delineation is mandatory to decrease interobserver variability in the hilar region, heart, great vessels, pericardium, mediastinum, and/or the region associated with atelectasis; however it is not essential for delineation of PT surrounded by lung or visceral pleura, without venous invasion or extension to the chest wall.
Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality of retrospectively attenuation corrected Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans used for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation in lung cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 13 lymph node positive lung cancer patients were acquired on separate CT and PET scanners under free breathing conditions (for radiotherapy planning). First we determined a protocol for CT/PET registration. Second, we compared the image quality of attenuation-corrected PET images using positron transmission images and CT images, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and lesion-to-background ratio (contrast). RESULTS: The largest differences between manual and automatic CT/PET registration were found in the anterior-posterior direction with a mean of 1.8 mm (SD 1.0 mm). Differences in rotations were always smaller than 1.0 degrees . The attenuation-corrected images using CT showed a larger SNR (mean 30%, SD 17%) and larger contrast (mean 14.0%, SD 8.5%) compared to attenuation-corrected images using positron transmission. For lymph nodes, the mean contrast was 16% (SD 6.4%) larger. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that attenuation correction based on CT provides a better image quality for GTV delineation than when using positron transmission for attenuation correction. Retrospective attenuation correction of PET scans based on registered CT is a good alternative for a dedicated PET/CT scanner if a free-breathing CT is available, e.g., for radiotherapy planning, and allows the use of CT with diagnostic quality for attenuation correction.
Abstract: PURPOSE: Target delineation using only CT information introduces large geometric uncertainties in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Therefore, a reduction of the delineation variability is needed. The impact of including a matched CT scan with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and adaptation of the delineation protocol and software on target delineation in lung cancer was evaluated in an extensive multi-institutional setting and compared with the delineations using CT only. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was separated into two phases. For the first phase, 11 radiation oncologists (observers) delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV), including the pathologic lymph nodes of 22 lung cancer patients (Stages I-IIIB) on CT only. For the second phase (1 year later), the same radiation oncologists delineated the GTV of the same 22 patients on a matched CT-FDG-PET scan using an adapted delineation protocol and software (according to the results of the first phase). All delineated volumes were analyzed in detail. The observer variation was computed in three dimensions by measuring the distance between the median GTV surface and each individual GTV. The variation in distance of all radiation oncologists was expressed as a standard deviation. The observer variation was evaluated for anatomic regions (lung, mediastinum, chest wall, atelectasis, and lymph nodes) and interpretation regions (agreement and disagreement; i.e., >80% vs. <80% of the radiation oncologists delineated the same structure, respectively). All radiation oncologist-computer interactions were recorded and analyzed with a tool called "Big Brother." RESULTS: The overall three-dimensional observer variation was reduced from 1.0 cm (SD) for the first phase (CT only) to 0.4 cm (SD) for the second phase (matched CT-FDG-PET). The largest reduction in the observer variation was seen in the atelectasis region (SD 1.9 cm reduced to 0.5 cm). The mean ratio between the common and encompassing volume was 0.17 and 0.29 for the first and second phases, respectively. For the first phase, the common volume was 0 in 4 patients (i.e., no common point for all GTVs). In the second phase, the common volume was always >0. For all anatomic regions, the interpretation differences among the radiation oncologists were reduced. The amount of disagreement was 45% and 18% for the first and second phase, respectively. Furthermore, the mean delineation time (12 vs. 16 min, p<0.001) and mean number of corrections (25 vs. 39, p<0.001) were reduced in the second phase compared with the first phase. CONCLUSION: For high-precision radiotherapy, the delineation of lung target volumes using only CT introduces too great a variability among radiation oncologists. Implementing matched CT-FDG-PET and adapted delineation protocol and software reduced observer variation in lung cancer delineation significantly with respect to CT only. However, the remaining observer variation was still large compared with other geometric uncertainties (setup variation and organ motion).
Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the process of target volume delineation in lung cancer for optimization of imaging, delineation protocol and delineation software. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven radiation oncologists (observers) from five different institutions delineated the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) including positive lymph nodes of 22 lung cancer patients (stages I-IIIB) on CT only. All radiation oncologist-computer interactions were recorded with a tool called 'Big Brother'. For each radiation oncologist and patient the following issues were analyzed: delineation time, number of delineated points and corrections, zoom levels, level and window (L/W) settings, CT slice changes, use of side windows (coronal and sagittal) and software button use. RESULTS: The mean delineation time per GTV was 16 min (SD 10 min). The mean delineation time for lymph node positive patients was on average 3 min larger (P = 0.02) than for lymph node negative patients. Many corrections (55%) were due to L/W change (e.g. delineating in mediastinum L/W and then correcting in lung L/W). For the lymph node region, a relatively large number of corrections was found (3.7 corr/cm2), indicating that it was difficult to delineate lymph nodes. For the tumor-atelectasis region, a relative small number of corrections was found (1.0 corr/cm2), indicating that including or excluding atelectasis into the GTV was a clinical decision. Inappropriate use of L/W settings was frequently found (e.g. 46% of all delineated points in the tumor-lung region were delineated in mediastinum L/W settings). Despite a large observer variation in cranial and caudal direction of 0.72 cm (1 SD), the coronal and sagittal side windows were not used in 45 and 60% of the cases, respectively. For the more difficult cases, observer variation was smaller when the coronal and sagittal side windows were used. CONCLUSIONS: With the 'Big Brother' tool a method was developed to trace the delineation process. The differences between observers concerning the delineation style were large. This study led to recommendations on how to improve delineation accuracy by adapting the delineation protocol (guidelines for L/W use) and delineation software (double window with lung and mediastinum L/W settings at the same time, enforced use of coronal and sagittal views) and including FDG-PET information (lymph nodes and atelectasis).
Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of different tabletops with or without a knee support on the position of the rectum, prostate, and bulb of the penis; and to evaluate the effect of these patient-positioning devices on treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 male volunteers, five MRI scans were made in four different positions: on a flat tabletop with knee support, on a flat tabletop without knee support, on a rounded tabletop with knee support, and on a rounded tabletop without knee support. The fifth scan was in the same position as the first. With image registration, the position differences of the rectum, prostate, and bulb of the penis were measured at several points in a sagittal plane through the central axis of the prostate. A planning target volume was generated from the delineated prostates with a margin of 10 mm in three dimensions. A three-field treatment plan with a prescribed dose of 78 Gy to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements point was automatically generated from each planning target volume. Dose-volume histograms were calculated for all rectal walls. RESULTS: The shape of the tabletop did not affect the rectum and prostate position. Addition of a knee support shifted the anterior and posterior rectal walls dorsally. For the anterior rectal wall, the maximum dorsal shift was 9.9 mm (standard error of the mean [SEM] 1.7 mm) at the top of the prostate. For the posterior rectal wall, the maximum dorsal shift was 10.2 mm (SEM 1.5 mm) at the middle of the prostate. Therefore, the rectal filling was pushed caudally when a knee support was added. The knee support caused a rotation of the prostate around the left-right axis at the apex (i.e., a dorsal rotation) by 5.6 degrees (SEM 0.8 degrees ) and shifts in the caudal and dorsal directions of 2.6 mm (SEM 0.4 cm) and 1.4 mm (SEM 0.6 mm), respectively. The position of the bulb of the penis was not influenced by the use of a knee support or rounded tabletop. The volume of the rectal wall receiving the same dose range (e.g., 40-75 Gy) was reduced by 3.5% (SEM 0.9%) when a knee support was added. No significant differences were observed between the first and fifth scan (flat tabletop with knee support) for all measured points, thereby excluding time trends. CONCLUSIONS: The rectum and prostate were significantly shifted dorsally by the use of a knee support. The rectum shifted more than the prostate, resulting in a dose benefit compared with irradiation without knee support. The shape of the tabletop did not influence the rectum or prostate position.
