4.7 Article

PANCREATIC CANCER TUMOR SIZE ON CT SCAN VERSUS PATHOLOGIC SPECIMEN: IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIATION TREATMENT PLANNING

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.058

关键词

Pancreatic cancer; CT; Pathology; Radiation; CTV formula

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA021239] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Pancreatic cancer primary tumor size measurements are often discordant between computed tomography (CT) and pathologic specimen after resection. Dimensions of the primary tumor are increasingly relevant in an era of highly conformal radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively evaluated 97 consecutive patients with resected pancreatic cancer at two Boston hospitals. All patients had CT scans before surgical resection. Primary endpoints were maximum dimension (in millimeters) of the primary tumor in any direction as reported by the radiologist on CT and by the pathologist for the resected gross fresh specimen. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings were analyzed if available. Results: Of the patients, 87 (90%) had preoperative CT scans available for review and 46 (47%) had EUS. Among proximal tumors (n = 69), 40 (58%) had pathologic duodenal invasion, which was seen on CT in only 3 cases. The pathologic tumor size was a median of 7 mm larger compared with CT size for the same patient (range, 15 to 43 mm; p < 0.0001), with 73 patients (84%) having a primary tumor larger on pathology than CT. Endoscopic ultrasound was somewhat more accurate, with pathologic tumor size being a median of only 5 mm larger compared with EUS size (range, 15 to 35 mm; p = 0.0003). Conclusions: Computed tomography scans significantly under-represent pancreatic cancer tumor size compared with pathologic specimens in resectable cases. We propose a clinical target volume expansion formula for the primary tumor based on our data. The high rate of pathologic duodenal invasion suggests a risk of duodenal under-coverage with highly conformal radiotherapy. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据