Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Apr;99(1):44-8. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.03.001. Epub 2011 Mar 30.

FET-PET for malignant glioma treatment planning.

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, München, Germany. maximilian.niyazi@med.uni-muenchen.de

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

The aim of this study was to compare MRI-based morphological gross tumour volumes (GTVs) to biological tumour volumes (BTVs), defined by the pathological radiotracer uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with (18)F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), subsequently clinical target volumes (CTVs) and finally planning target volumes (PTVs) for radiotherapy planning of glioblastoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

Seventeen patients with glioblastoma were included into a retrospective protocol. Treatment-planning was performed using clinical target volume (CTV=BTV+20mm or CTV=GTV+20mm+inclusion of the edema) and planning target volume (PTV=CTV+5mm). Image fusion and target volume delineation were performed with OTP-Masterplan®. Initial gross tumour volume (GTV) definition was based on MRI data only or FET-PET data only (BTV), secondarily both data sets were used to define a common CTV.

RESULTS:

FET based BTVs (median 43.9 cm(3)) were larger than corresponding GTVs (median 34.1cm(3), p=0.028), in 11 of 17 cases there were major differences between GTV/BTV. To evaluate the conformity of both planning methods, the index (CTV(MRT)∩CTV(FET))/(CTV(MRT)∪CTV(FET)) was quantified which was significantly different from 1 (0.73 ± 0.03, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION:

With FET-PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs/BTVs differed in a majority of patients. It remains open whether FET-PET-based target definition has a relevant clinical impact for treatment planning.

PMID:
21458093
DOI:
10.1016/j.radonc.2011.03.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center