Fulltext

Assessment of various strategies for 18F-FET PET-guided delineation of target volumes in high-grade glioma patients

Vees, Hansjörg ; Senthamizhchelvan, Srinivasan ; Miralbell, Raymond ; Weber, Damien ; Ratib, Osman ; Zaidi, Habib

In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2009, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 182-193

Aggiungi alla tua lista
    Titre
    • Assessment of various strategies for 18F-FET PET-guided delineation of target volumes in high-grade glioma patients
    Auteur
    • Vees, Hansjörg. Service of Nuclear Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Senthamizhchelvan, Srinivasan. Service of Nuclear Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Miralbell, Raymond. Service of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Weber, Damien. Service of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Ratib, Osman. Service of Nuclear Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Zaidi, Habib. Service of Nuclear Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland
    Type de document
    • Postprint
    Langue
    • Inglese
    Publié dans
    • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2009, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 182-193. Springer-Verlag
    Autre version électronique
    Identifiant OAI-PMH
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:316699
    Summary
    Purpose: The purpose of the study is to assess the contribution of 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine (18F-FET) positron emission tomography (PET) in the delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV) in patients with high-grade gliomas compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone. Materials and methods: The study population consisted of 18 patients with high-grade gliomas. Seven image segmentation techniques were used to delineate 18F-FET PET GTVs, and the results were compared to the manual MRI-derived GTV (GTVMRI). PET image segmentation techniques included manual delineation of contours (GTVman), a 2.5 standardized uptake value (SUV) cutoff (GTV2.5), a fixed threshold of 40% and 50% of the maximum signal intensity (GTV40% and GTV50%), signal-to-background ratio (SBR)-based adaptive thresholding (GTVSBR), gradient find (GTVGF), and region growing (GTVRG). Overlap analysis was also conducted to assess geographic mismatch between the GTVs delineated using the different techniques. Results: Contours defined using GTV2.5 failed to provide successful delineation technically in three patients (18% of cases) as SUVmax < 2.5 and clinically in 14 patients (78% of cases). Overall, the majority of GTVs defined on PET-based techniques were usually smaller than GTVMRI (67% of cases). Yet, PET detected frequently tumors that are not visible on MRI and added substantially tumor extension outside the GTVMRI in six patients (33% of cases). Conclusions: The selection of the most appropriate 18F-FET PET-based segmentation algorithm is crucial, since it impacts both the volume and shape of the resulting GTV. The 2.5 SUV isocontour and GF segmentation techniques performed poorly and should not be used for GTV delineation. With adequate setting, the SBR-based PET technique may add considerably to conventional MRI-guided GTV delineation