Regarding Davis et al.: Assessment of (18)F PET signals for automatic target volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning

Recommendations of the Spanish Societies of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging (SEMNiM), and Medical Physics (SEFM) on (18)F-FDG PET-CT for radiotherapy treatment planning

Positron emission tomography (PET) with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is a valuable tool for diagnosing and staging malignant lesions. The fusion of PET and computed tomography (CT) yields images that contain both metabolic and morphological information, which, taken together, have improved the diagnostic precision of PET in oncology. The main imaging modality for planning radiotherapy treatment is CT. However, PET-CT is an emerging modality for use in planning treatments because it allows for more accurate treatment volume definition. The use of PET-CT for treatment planning is highly complex, and protocols and standards for its use are still being developed. It seems probable that PET-CT will eventually replace current CT-based planning methods, but this will require a full understanding of the relevant technical aspects of PET-CT planning. The aim of the present document is to review these technical aspects and to provide recommendations for clinical use of this imaging modality in the radiotherapy planning process.

Improving target definition for head and neck radiotherapy: a place for magnetic resonance imaging and 18-fluoride fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography?

Defining the target for head and neck radiotherapy is a critical issue with the introduction of steep dose gradients associated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Tumour delineation inaccuracies are a major source of error in radiotherapy planning. The integration of 18-fluoride fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET) and magnetic resonance imaging directly into the radiotherapy planning process has the potential to greatly improve target identification/selection and delineation. This raises a range of new issues surrounding image co-registration, delineation methodology and the use of functional data and treatment adaptation. This overview will discuss the practical aspects of integrating (18)FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging into head and neck radiotherapy planning.

Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes

Accumulating evidence suggests that characteristics of pre-treatment FDG-PET could be used as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in different cancer sites. Current risk analyses are limited to visual assessment or direct uptake value measurements. We are investigating intensity-volume histogram metrics and shape and texture features extracted from PET images to predict patient's response to treatment. These approaches were demonstrated using datasets from cervix and head and neck cancers, where AUC of 0.76 and 1.0 were achieved, respectively. The preliminary results suggest that the proposed approaches could potentially provide better tools and discriminant power for utilizing functional imaging in clinical prognosis.

Comparison of five segmentation tools for 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography-based target volume definition in head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Target-volume delineation for radiation treatment to the head and neck area traditionally is based on physical examination, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging. Additional molecular imaging with (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) may improve definition of the gross tumor volume (GTV). In this study, five methods for tumor delineation on FDG-PET are compared with CT-based delineation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seventy-eight patients with Stages II-IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck area underwent coregistered CT and FDG-PET. The primary tumor was delineated on CT, and five PET-based GTVs were obtained: visual interpretation, applying an isocontour of a standardized uptake value of 2.5, using a fixed threshold of 40% and 50% of the maximum signal intensity, and applying an adaptive threshold based on the signal-to-background ratio. Absolute GTV volumes were compared, and overlap analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The GTV method of applying an isocontour of a standardized uptake value of 2.5 failed to provide successful delineation in 45% of cases. For the other PET delineation methods, volume and shape of the GTV were influenced heavily by the choice of segmentation tool. On average, all threshold-based PET-GTVs were smaller than on CT. Nevertheless, PET frequently detected significant tumor extension outside the GTV delineated on CT (15-34% of PET volume).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of segmentation tool for target-volume definition of head and neck cancer based on FDG-PET images is not trivial because it influences both volume and shape of the resulting GTV. With adequate delineation, PET may add significantly to CT- and physical examination-based GTV definition.