Does registration of PET and planning CT images decrease interobserver and intraobserver variation in delineating tumor volumes for non-small-cell lung cancer?
- PMID: 15850904
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.09.020
Does registration of PET and planning CT images decrease interobserver and intraobserver variation in delineating tumor volumes for non-small-cell lung cancer?
Abstract
Purpose: To compare tumor volume delineation using registered positron emission tomography (PET)/CT vs. side-by-side image sets.
Methods and materials: A total of 19 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer had 18-fluorine-deoxyglucose (FDG)-PET scans registered with planning CT scans. The disease was Stage I-II in 26%, IIIA in 42%, and IIIB in 32%. Two radiation oncologists contoured 9 tumor volumes using registered images (registered) and 10 using separate FDG-PET images as a guide (nonregistered). A third physician, who had done the treatment planning for these patients a median of 40 months before using registered images, repeated all contours: 10 on registered images (registered/registered) and 9 without registration (registered/nonregistered). Each pair of volumes (A and B) was compared. Quantitative comparison used the concordance index, (A intersection B)/(A union or logical sum B). For qualitative analysis, pairs of volumes were projected onto digitally reconstructed radiographs. The differences were graded as insignificant, minor, moderate, or major.
Results: The median interobserver percentage of concordance among nonregistered pairs was 61% vs. 70% in the registered group (p <0.05). On qualitative analysis, in the nonregistered group, the differences were insignificant in 5, minor in 3, and moderate in 2 of 10. The differences in the registered group were insignificant in 7 and minor in 2 of 9. The median intraobserver percentage of concordance in the registered/nonregistered group was 58% vs. 71% in the registered/registered group (p = 0.10). On qualitative analysis, the intraobserver differences in the registered/nonregistered group were insignificant in 2, minor in 2, moderate in 0, and major in 5 of 9. In the registered/registered group, the differences were insignificant in 2, minor in 6, moderate in 2, and major in 0 of 10.
Conclusion: Registration of FDG-PET and planning CT images results in greater consistency in tumor volume delineation.
Similar articles
-
The contribution of integrated PET/CT to the evolving definition of treatment volumes in radiation treatment planning in lung cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Nov 15;63(4):1016-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.021. Epub 2005 Jun 24. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005. PMID: 15979817
-
(18)F-FDG PET-CT simulation for non-small-cell lung cancer: effect in patients already staged by PET-CT.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 May 1;77(1):24-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.045. Epub 2009 Aug 6. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010. PMID: 19665324
-
Impact of computed tomography and 18F-deoxyglucose coincidence detection emission tomography image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Dec 1;63(5):1432-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.016. Epub 2005 Aug 25. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005. PMID: 16125870
-
Current status of PET/CT for tumour volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Lung Cancer. 2007 Aug;57(2):125-34. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.03.020. Epub 2007 May 2. Lung Cancer. 2007. PMID: 17478008 Review.
-
Clinical implications of defining the gross tumor volume with combination of CT and 18FDG-positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 1;67(3):709-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.09.046. Epub 2006 Dec 29. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007. PMID: 17197120 Review.
Cited by
-
Use of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Radiation Treatment Planning for Lung Cancer.Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2016 Jun 5;25(2):50-62. doi: 10.4274/mirt.19870. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2016. PMID: 27277321 Free PMC article.
-
Uncertainties in target volume delineation in radiotherapy - are they relevant and what can we do about them?Radiol Oncol. 2016 May 9;50(3):254-62. doi: 10.1515/raon-2016-0023. eCollection 2016 Sep 1. Radiol Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27679540 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of primary target volumes delineated on four-dimensional CT and 18 F-FDG PET/CT of non-small-cell lung cancer.Radiat Oncol. 2014 Aug 15;9:182. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-182. Radiat Oncol. 2014. PMID: 25123450 Free PMC article.
-
A review on segmentation of positron emission tomography images.Comput Biol Med. 2014 Jul;50:76-96. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2014.04.014. Epub 2014 Apr 28. Comput Biol Med. 2014. PMID: 24845019 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Influence of experience and qualification on PET-based target volume delineation. When there is no expert--ask your colleague.Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Jun;190(6):555-62. doi: 10.1007/s00066-014-0644-y. Epub 2014 Mar 11. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014. PMID: 24615189
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical