4.7 Review

Radiographic changes after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) - Can we distinguish recurrence from fibrosis? A systematic review of the literature

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 335-342

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.12.018

关键词

Stereotactic radiation; Lung cancer; Computed tomography; Positron emission tomography; Local recurrence

资金

  1. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
  2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Changes in lung density on computed tomography (CT) are common after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and can confound the early detection of recurrence. We performed a systematic review to describe post-SABR findings on computed tomography (CT) and positron-emission tomography (PET), identify imaging characteristics that predict recurrence and propose a follow-up imaging algorithm. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of studies providing detailed radiologic descriptions of anatomic and metabolic lung changes after SABR. Our search returned 824 studies; 26 met our inclusion criteria. Data are presented according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Acute changes post-SABR predominantly appear as consolidation or ground glass opacities. Late changes often demonstrate a modified conventional pattern of fibrosis, evolving beyond 2 years after treatment. Several CT features, including an enlarging opacity, correlate with recurrence. Although PET SUVmax may rise immediately post-SABR, an SUVmax >= 5 carries a high predictive value of recurrence. Conclusions: CT density changes are common post-SABR. The available evidence suggests that recurrent disease should be suspected if high-risk CT changes are seen with SUVmax >= 5 on PET. Further studies are needed to validate the predictive values of such metrics, and for advanced analysis of CT changes to allow early detection of potentially curable local recurrence. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 102 (2012) 335-342

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