A prospective study of 18FDG-PET with CT coregistration for radiation treatment planning of lymphomas and other hematologic malignancies Journal Article


Authors: Terezakis, S. A.; Schöder, H.; Kowalski, A.; Mccann, P.; Lim, R.; Turlakow, A.; Gonen, M.; Barker, C.; Goenka, A.; Lovie, S.; Yahalom, J.
Article Title: A prospective study of 18FDG-PET with CT coregistration for radiation treatment planning of lymphomas and other hematologic malignancies
Abstract: 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. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: adult; cancer chemotherapy; controlled study; aged; major clinical study; review; treatment planning; cancer radiotherapy; radiation dose; chemotherapy; positron emission tomography; antineoplastic agent; cancer diagnosis; prospective study; multiple myeloma; tumor volume; radiotherapy; plasmacytoma; oncology; hodgkin disease; hematologic malignancy; nonhodgkin lymphoma; correlation coefficient; computerized tomography; tumors; lymphoma; fluorodeoxyglucose f 18; computer assisted emission tomography; physician; nuclear medicine; large cell lymphoma; mycosis fungoides; burkitt lymphoma; student t test; positron emission tomography (pet); radiation oncologists; radiation treatment planning; histogram; non-hodgkin lymphoma; langerhans cell histiocytosis; statistical tests; correlation methods; plasmablastic lymphoma; dose-volume histograms; methods and materials; human; male; female; priority journal; pet-ct scanner; computed tomography scan; pearson correlation coefficients; radiation oncologist
Journal Title: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Volume: 89
Issue: 2
ISSN: 0360-3016
Publisher: Elsevier Inc.  
Date Published: 2014-06-01
Start Page: 376
End Page: 383
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.006
PROVIDER: scopus
PUBMED: 24726287
PMCID: PMC5568241
DOI/URL:
Notes: Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. -- Export Date: 2 June 2014 -- CODEN: IOBPD -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Joachim Yahalom
    634 Yahalom
  2. Mithat Gonen
    1031 Gonen
  3. Patrick Mccann
    13 Mccann
  4. Heiko Schoder
    550 Schoder
  5. Remy Chee Hong Lim
    10 Lim
  6. Anuj Goenka
    18 Goenka
  7. Christopher Barker
    219 Barker
  8. Shona Lovie
    9 Lovie