18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography–Based Radiotherapy Target Volume Definition in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Delineation by Radiation Oncologists vs. Joint Outlining With a PET Radiologist?

Hanna, G.G.; Carson, K.J.; Lynch, Tom; McAleese, J.; Cosgrove, V.P.; Eakin, R.; Stewart, David P.; Zatari, A.; O’Sullivan, Joe M.; Hounsell, Alan R.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.060

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Access to peer review was associated with other quality measures. Despite evidence that a radiologist would be helpful in the planning process [28] we found that only 4% cases had the benefit of radiologist input at the time of outlining.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

The Quality of Curative-intent Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the UK

McAleese¹,

Baluch²,

Drinkwater³

2015

Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

The Quality of Curative-intent Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the UK

McAleese¹,

Baluch²,

Drinkwater³

2015

Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Delineation studies exist showing that percentage volume changes from GTV [CT] to GTV [PET/CT] were lower for the nuclear medicine expert than for the radiation oncologists, suggesting a lower impact of PET/CT in target volume delineation for the nuclear medicine expert than for the radiation oncologists [29]; this observation is probably due to the radiation oncologist’s experience on the natural tumour spread and thus a tendency to extend the respective GTV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated biological target volume delineation for radiotherapy treatment planning using FDG-PET/CT

Niyazi¹,

Landrock²,

Elsner

et al. 2013

Radiat Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study compared manually delineated gross tumour volume (GTV) and automatically generated biological tumour volume (BTV) based on fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT to assess the robustness of predefined PET algorithms for radiotherapy (RT) planning in routine clinical practice.MethodsRT-planning data from 20 consecutive patients (lung- (40%), oesophageal- (25%), gynaecological- (25%) and colorectal (10%) cancer) who had undergone FDG-PET/CT planning between 08/2010 and 09/2011 were retrospectively analysed, five of them underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radiotherapy. In addition to manual GTV contouring, automated segmentation algorithms were applied–among these 38%, 42%, 47% and 50% SUVmax as well as the PERCIST total lesion glycolysis (TLG) algorithm. Different ratios were calculated to assess the overlap of GTV and BTV including the conformity index and the ratio GTV included within the BTV.ResultsMedian age of the patients was 66 years and median tumour SUVmax 9.2. Median size of the GTVs defined by the radiation oncologist was 43.7 ml. Median conformity indices were between 30.0–37.8%. The highest amount of BTV within GTV was seen with the 38% SUVmax algorithm (49.0%), the lowest with 50% SUVmax (36.0%). Best agreement was obtained for oesophageal cancer patients with a conformity index of 56.4% and BTV within GTV ratio of 71.1%.ConclusionsAt present there is only low concordance between manually derived GTVs and automatically segmented FDG-PET/CT based BTVs indicating the need for further research in order to achieve higher volumetric conformity and therefore to get access to the full potential of FDG-PET/CT for optimization of radiotherapy planning.

show abstract

“…This was primarily driven by uncertainties in CC direction as there was a significant difference between radiologists and oncologists in this direction and not in the transversal plane. A few studies have shown that GTV delineation differs significantly between groups [4,21], and a single study found no difference [19]. Giraud et al [4] analysed stage I-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer delineated by nine radiation oncologists and eight radiologists from five centres in France and Belgium.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interobserver delineation variation in lung tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy

Persson¹,

Nygaard²,

Hollensen³

et al. 2012

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interobserver delineation variation was very small in this systematic cross-sectional analysis, although significantly larger in the CC direction than in the transversal plane, stressing that anisotropic margins should be applied. This study is the first to make a systematic cross-sectional analysis of delineation variation for peripheral lung tumours referred for SBRT, establishing the evidence that interobserver variation is very small for these tumours.

show abstract

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography–Based Radiotherapy Target Volume Definition in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Delineation by Radiation Oncologists vs. Joint Outlining With a PET Radiologist?

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

The Quality of Curative-intent Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the UK

The Quality of Curative-intent Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the UK

Automated biological target volume delineation for radiotherapy treatment planning using FDG-PET/CT

Interobserver delineation variation in lung tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About