4.5 Article

[(18)F]Fluoroethyltyrosine- positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for high-grade glioma

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-3-44

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [3152A0-102143]
  2. foundation Cellex International

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To compare morphological gross tumor volumes (GTVs), defined as pre- and postoperative gadolinium enhancement on T-1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to biological tumor volumes (BTVs), defined by the uptake of F-18 fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) for the radiotherapy planning of high-grade glioma, using a dedicated positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scanner equipped with three triangulation lasers for patient positioning. Methods: Nineteen patients with malignant glioma were included into a prospective protocol using FET PET-CT for radiotherapy planning. To be eligible, patients had to present with residual disease after surgery. Planning was performed using the clinical target volume (CTV = GTV boolean OR BTV) and planning target volume (PTV = CTV + 20 mm). First, the interrater reliability for BTV delineation was assessed among three observers. Second, the BTV and GTV were quantified and compared. Finally, the geometrical relationships between GTV and BTV were assessed. Results: Interrater agreement for BTV delineation was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.9). Although, BTVs and GTVs were not significantly different (p = 0.9), CTVs (mean 57.8 +/- 30.4 cm(3)) were significantly larger than BTVs (mean 42.1 +/- 24.4 cm(3); p < 0.01) or GTVs ( mean 38.7 +/- 25.7 cm(3); p < 0.01). In 13 (68%) and 6 (32%) of 19 patients, FET uptake extended >= 10 and 20 mm from the margin of the gadolinium enhancement. Conclusion: Using FET, the interrater reliability had excellent agreement for BTV delineation. With FET PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs and BTVs differed in a majority of patients.

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

4.5
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