PET/MRI-guided GTV delineation during radiotherapy planning in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of 18-fluorine-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) hybrid in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation during radiotherapy planning in patients with carcinoma of the tongue. Methods Ten patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the tongue underwent computed tomography (CT) and PET/MRI examination. The GTV for primary tumor and lymph nodes (nGTV) were defined on CT (GTV-CT) and compared to GTVs obtained from PET (GTV-PET) and MRI (GTV-MRI) images. Two methods of GTV determination were used: visual interpretation of CT, PET (GTV-PET vis ) and MRI images and quantitative automatic method (Syngovia, Siemens) based on a chosen threshold value (20%, 30%, 40%, 50%) of standardized uptake values (SUV max ) from PET examination (GTV-PET 20% , GTV-PET 30% , etc.). Statistical analysis of differences in GTV values obtained from CT, PET and MRI studies was performed. GTV-CT was used as a reference. Results In all, 80% of GTV-MRI and 40% of GTV-PET vis were larger than GTV-CT. Respectively, 20% of GTV-MRI and 60% of GTV-PET vis were smaller than GTV-CT. Taking into account all threshold measurements, 70% of volumes were smaller than GTV-CT. GTV-PET 30% were the most closely related volumes to GTV-CT from all threshold methods in 50% of patients. GTV-PET vis generated the most similar volumes in relation to GTV-CT from all PET measurements. Statistical analysis confirmed those results. Compared to nGTV-CT, 70% of nGTV-MRI and 20% of nGTV-PET vis were larger. The remaining nGTV-MRI and nGTV-PET vis measurements were smaller than nGTV-CT. Measurements of all thresholds nGTVs were smaller than nGTV-CTV in 52.5% of cases. nGTV-PET 20% were the most closely related volumes to nGTV-CT in 40% of the cases. Statistical analysis showed that nGTV-PET 20% ( p = 0.0468), nGTV-PET vis ( p = 0.0166), and nGTV-PET 50% ( p = 0.0166) diverge significantly from nGTV-CT results. nGTV-MRI ( p = 0.1141), nGTV-PET 30% ( p = 0.2845), and nGTV-PET 40% ( p = 0.5076) were significantly related with nGTV-CT. Conclusion Combination of PET/MRI provides more information during target tumor mass delineation in radiotherapy planning of patients with SCC of the tongue than other standard imaging methods. The most frequently matching threshold value was 30% of SUV ...

Usefulness of Hybrid PET/MRI in Clinical Evaluation of Head and Neck Cancer Patients

“…PET complements anatomical imaging modalities, particularly in tumor volume determination. Therefore, our study demonstrated stronger correlations between SUV values and PET/MRI than between those values and CT [29]. Tumor volume and SUV values are considered prognostic factors-increased values of both are associated with a higher risk of death [30,31].…”

Impact of 18F-FDG-PET/CT on the identification of regional lymph node metastases and delineation of the primary tumor in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients

“…Furthermore, 18 F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) is often performed in order to rule out distant metastases before starting curative treatment. Because FDG-PET/CT has also demonstrated promising sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy regarding the detection of lymph node metastases as well as the detection of the primary tumor [ 10 , 11 ], implementation of PET into the radiation planning process might change the resulting target volumes, as it has already been demonstrated for other tumor entities like prostate cancer or squamous cell cancer of the tongue [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Long-term follow-up of children with neuroblastoma receiving radiotherapy to metastatic lesions within the German Neuroblastoma Trials NB97 and NB 2004

“…First, while in 17 of 18 patients of our study cohort the target volume was defined by the extension of the MIBG-active lesion at the time of RT, previous studies defined the target volume as the volume visible on cross-sectional studies either at initial staging or after induction chemotherapy. Due to these diverging approaches resulting in different target volumes, the comparison of data remains challenging [18][19][20]. There were no general recommendations for the irradiation of metastases within NB 97 and NB 2004 and the indication for RT to metastatic lesions was based on individual decisions, forming a risk for selection bias [21].…”