Geometrical differences in target volumes based on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography maximum intensity projection images of primary thoracic esophageal cancer

A modern review of the uncertainties in volumetric imaging of respiratory-induced target motion in lung radiotherapy

Radiotherapy has become a critical component for the treatment of all stages and types of lung cancer, often times being the primary gateway to a cure. However, given that radiation can cause harmful side effects depending on how much surrounding healthy tissue is exposed, treatment of the lung can be particularly challenging due to the presence of moving targets. Careful implementation of every step in the radiotherapy process is absolutely integral for attaining optimal clinical outcomes. With the advent and now widespread use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), where extremely large doses are delivered, accurate, and precise dose targeting is especially vital to achieve an optimal risk to benefit ratio. This has largely become possible due to the rapid development of image-guided technology. Although imaging is critical to the success of radiotherapy, it can often be plagued with uncertainties due to respiratory-induced target motion. There has and continues to be an immense research effort aimed at acknowledging and addressing these uncertainties to further our abilities to more precisely target radiation treatment. Thus, the goal of this article is to provide a detailed review of the prevailing uncertainties that remain to be investigated across the different imaging modalities, as well as to highlight the more modern solutions to imaging motion and their role in addressing the current challenges.

PET imaging in adaptive radiotherapy of gastrointestinal tumors

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy is a cornerstone in the multimodality treatment of several gastrointestinal (GI) tumors. Positron-emission tomography (PET) has an established role in the diagnosis, response assessment and (re-)staging of these tumors. Nevertheless, the value of PET in adaptive radiotherapy remains unclear. This review focuses on the role of PET in adaptive radiotherapy, i.e. during the treatment course and in the delineation process.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE database was searched for the terms ("Radiotherapy"[Mesh] AND "Positron-Emission Tomography"[Mesh] AND one of the site-specific keywords, yielding a total of 1710 articles. After abstract selection, 27 papers were identified for esophageal neoplasms, 1 for gastric neoplasms, 9 for pancreatic neoplasms, 6 for liver neoplasms, 1 for biliary tract neoplasms, none for colonic neoplasms, 15 for rectal neoplasms and 12 for anus neoplasms.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The use of PET for truly adaptive radiotherapy during treatment for GI tumors has barely been investigated, in contrast to the potential of the PET-defined metabolic tumor volume for optimization of the target volume. The optimized target definition seems useful for treatment individualization such as focal boosting strategies in esophageal, pancreatic and anorectal cancer. Nevertheless, for all GI tumors, further investigation is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, too little data are available to conclude on the role of PET imaging during radiotherapy for ART strategies in GI cancer. On the other hand, based on the available evidence, the use of biological imaging for target volume adaptation seems promising and could pave the road towards individualized treatment strategies.

Respiratory-gated (4D) contrast-enhanced FDG PET-CT for radiotherapy planning of lower oesophageal carcinoma: feasibility and impact on planning target volume

BACKGROUND

To assess the feasibility and potential impact on target delineation of respiratory-gated (4D) contrast-enhanced ¹⁸Fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography - computed tomography (PET-CT), in the treatment planning position, for a prospective cohort of patients with lower third oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were recruited into the study. Imaging included 4D PET-CT, 3D PET-CT, endoscopic ultrasound and planning 4D CT. Target volume delineation was performed on 4D CT, 4D CT with co-registered 3D PET and 4D PET-CT. Planning target volumes (PTV) generated with 4D CT (PTV_4DCT), 4D CT co-registered with 3D PET-CT (PTV_3DPET4DCT) and 4D PET-CT (PTV_4DPETCT) were compared with multiple positional metrics.

RESULTS

Mean PTV_4DCT, PTV_3DPET4DCT and PTV_4DPETCT were 582.4 ± 275.1 cm³, 472.5 ± 193.1 cm³ and 480.6 ± 236.9 cm³ respectively (no significant difference). Median DICE similarity coefficients comparing PTV_4DCT with PTV_3DPET4DCT, PTV_4DCT with PTV_4DPETCT and PTV_3DPET4DCT with PTV_4DPETCT were 0.85 (range 0.65-0.9), 0.85 (range 0.69-0.9) and 0.88 (range 0.79-0.9) respectively. The median sensitivity index for overlap comparing PTV_4DCT with PTV_3DPET4DCT, PTV_4DCT with PTV_4DPETCT and PTV_3DPET4DCT with PTV_4DPETCT were 0.78 (range 0.65-0.9), 0.79 (range 0.65-0.9) and 0.89 (range 0.68-0.94) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Planning 4D PET-CT is feasible with careful patient selection. PTV generated using 4D CT, 3D PET-CT and 4D PET-CT were of similar volume, however, overlap analysis demonstrated that approximately 20% of PTV_3DPETCT and PTV_4DPETCT are not included in PTV_4DCT, leading to under-coverage of target volume and a potential geometric miss. Additionally, differences between PTV_3DPET4DCT and PTV_4DPETCT suggest a potential benefit for 4D PET-CT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier - NCT02285660 (Registered 21/10/2014).

Metabolic tumor volume provides complementary prognostic information to EUS staging in esophageal and junctional cancer

To determine the correlation between 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) derived esophageal tumor parameters [maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV)] and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) derived tumor parameters (T stage, N stage) and their prognostic implications. 150 consecutive patients with cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction underwent staging PET-CT and staging EUS. PET-CT derived SUVmax and MTV of the primary tumor was recorded. EUS evaluated T and N stage. Relationships between parameters were investigated using the Mann-Whitney U tests, survival analysis performed using Kaplan-Meier and independent prognostic factors determined using Cox regression multivariate analysis. A significant difference in MTV was noted between EUS T1/T2 tumors (median 6.7 cm3) and EUS T3/T4 tumors (median 35.7 cm3; P < 0.0001). An MTV of <23.4 cm3 (P = 0.0001), SUVmax < 4.1 (P = 0014), EUS T stage (P < 0.0001), EUS N stage (P < 0.0001), and clinical stage (P < 0.0001) were all significantly associated with survival, with MTV <23.4 cm3 (P = 0.004), EUS T stage (P = 0.01), and EUS N stage (P = 0.01) significant in multivariate analysis. MTV, a volumetric parameter of PET-CT, has more prognostic importance than SUVmax and provides valuable prognostic information in esophageal and junctional cancer, along with EUS T and N stage. MTV provides complementary information to EUS and should be included in the staging of esophageal and junctional cancer.