GTV volume estimation using different mode of computer tomography for lung tumors in stereotactic body radiation therapy

Open access

Abstract

Aim: To estimate the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) using different modes (axial, helical, slow, KV-CBCT & 4D-CT) of computed tomography (CT) in pulmonary tumors.

Materials & Methods: We have retrospectively included ten previously treated case of carcinoma of primary lung or metastatic lung using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in this study. All the patients underwent 4 modes of CT scan Axial, Helical, Slow & 4D-CT using GE discovery 16 Slice PET-CT scanner and daily KV-CBCT for the daily treatment verification. For standardization, all the patients underwent different modes of scan using 2.5 mm slice thickness, 16 detectors rows and field of view of 400mm. Slow CT was performed using axial mode scan by increasing the CT tube rotation time (typically 3 – 4 sec.) as per the breathing period of the patients. 4D-CT scans were performed and the entire respiratory cycle was divided into ten phases. Maximum Intensity Projections (MIP), Minimum Intensity Projections (MinIP) and Average Intensity Projections (AvIP) were derived from the 10 phases. GTV volumes were delineated for all the patients in all the scanning modes (GTVAX - Axial, GTVHL - Helical, GTVSL – Slow, GTVMIP -4DCT and GTVCB – KV-CBCT) in the Eclipse treatment planning system version 11.0 (M/S Varian Medical System, USA). GTV volumes were measured, documented and compared with the different modes of CT scans.

Results: The mean ± standard deviation (range) for MIP, slow, axial, helical & CBCT were 36.5 ± 40.5 (2.29 – 87.0), 35.38 ± 39.52 (2.1 – 82), 31.95 ± 37.29 (1.32 – 66.9), 28.98 ± 33.36 (1.01 – 65.9) & 37.16 ± 42.23 (2.29 – 92). Overall underestimation of helical scan and axial scan compared to MIP is 21% and 12.5%. CBCT and slow CT volume has a good correlation with the MIP volume.

Conclusion: For SBRT in lung tumors better to avoid axial and helical scan for target delineation. MIP is a still a golden standard for the ITV delineation, but in the absence of 4DCT scanner, Slow CT and KV-CBCT data may be considered for ITV delineation with caution.

[1] Segedin B, Petric P. Uncertainties in target volume delineation in radiotherapy – are they relevant and what can we do about them? Radiol Oncol. 2016;50(3):254-262.

[2] International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report 62: Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50) Bethesda, MD: ICRU; 1999.

[3] Shang DP, Liu CX, Yin Y. A comparison of the different 3D CT scanning modes on the GTV delineation for the solitary pulmonary lesion. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:211.

[4] Li F, Li J, Zhang Y, et al. Geometrical differences in gross target volumes between 3DCT and 4DCT imaging in radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. J Radiat Res. 2013;54(5): 950-956.

[5] Wang W, Ki J, Zhang Y, et al. Comparison of patient-specific internal gross tumor volume for radiation treatment of primary esophageal cancer based separately on three-dimensional and four-dimensional computed tomography images. Dis Esophagus. 2014;27(4):348-354.

[6] Park S, Urm S, Cho H. Analysis of Biologically Equivalent Dose of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary and Metastatic Lung Tumors. Cancer Res Treat. 2014;46(4):403-410.

[7] Peng J, Zhang Z, Wang J, et al. Is internal target volume accurate for dose evaluation in lung cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy? Oncotarget. 2016;7(16):22523-22530.

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

The Journal of Polish Society of Medical Physics

Journal Information


CiteScore 2018: 0.38
ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.132
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.303

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 98 98 21
PDF Downloads 102 102 16