Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer

Kyle Wang, Brandon T. Mullins, Aaron D. Falchook, Jun Lian, Kelei He, Dinggang Shen, Michael Dance, Weili Lin, Tiffany M. Sills, Shiva K. Das, Benjamin Y. Huang, Bhishamjit S. Chera

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Computed tomography (CT), combined positron emitted tomography and CT (PET/CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in head and neck radiation planning. Hybrid PET/MRI has garnered attention for potential added value in cancer staging and treatment planning. Herein, we compare PET/MRI vs. planning CT for head and neck cancer gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation. Material and methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with head and neck cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation to 60-70 Gy using IMRT. We performed pretreatment contrast-enhanced planning CT and gadolinium-enhanced PET/MRI. Primary and nodal volumes were delineated on planning CT (GTV-CT) prospectively before treatment and PET/MRI (GTV-PET/MRI) retrospectively after treatment. GTV-PET/MRI was compared to GTV-CT using separate rigid registrations for each tumor volume. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) metric evaluating spatial overlap and modified Hausdorff distance (mHD) evaluating mean orthogonal distance difference were calculated. Minimum dose to 95% of GTVs (D95) was compared. Results: Eleven patients were evaluable (10 oropharynx, 1 larynx). Nine patients had evaluable primary tumor GTVs and seven patients had evaluable nodal GTVs. Mean primary GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 13.2 and 14.3 cc, with mean intersection 8.7 cc, DSC 0.63, and mHD 1.6 mm. D95 was 65.3 Gy for primary GTV-CT vs. 65.2 Gy for primary GTV-PET/MRI. Mean nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 19.0 and 23.0 cc, with mean intersection 14.4 cc, DSC 0.69, and mHD 2.3 mm. D95 was 62.3 Gy for both nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI. Conclusion: In this series of patients with head and neck (primarily oropharynx) cancer, PET/MRI and CT-GTVs had similar volumes (though there were individual cases with larger differences) with overall small discrepancies in spatial overlap, small mean orthogonal distance differences, and similar radiation doses.

Original languageEnglish
Article number8
JournalFrontiers in Oncology
Volume7
Issue numberJAN
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Jan 23
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Head and Neck Neoplasms
Tumor Burden
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Tomography
Neck
Head
Radiation
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
Oropharynx
Neoplasm Staging
Gadolinium
Larynx
Therapeutics
Electrons

Keywords

  • CT
  • GTV
  • Head and neck cancer
  • PET/MRI
  • Radiation treatment planning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Wang, K., Mullins, B. T., Falchook, A. D., Lian, J., He, K., Shen, D., ... Chera, B. S. (2017). Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer. Frontiers in Oncology, 7(JAN), [8]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00008

Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer. / Wang, Kyle; Mullins, Brandon T.; Falchook, Aaron D.; Lian, Jun; He, Kelei; Shen, Dinggang; Dance, Michael; Lin, Weili; Sills, Tiffany M.; Das, Shiva K.; Huang, Benjamin Y.; Chera, Bhishamjit S.

In: Frontiers in Oncology, Vol. 7, No. JAN, 8, 23.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, K, Mullins, BT, Falchook, AD, Lian, J, He, K, Shen, D, Dance, M, Lin, W, Sills, TM, Das, SK, Huang, BY & Chera, BS 2017, 'Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer', Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 7, no. JAN, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00008
Wang, Kyle ; Mullins, Brandon T. ; Falchook, Aaron D. ; Lian, Jun ; He, Kelei ; Shen, Dinggang ; Dance, Michael ; Lin, Weili ; Sills, Tiffany M. ; Das, Shiva K. ; Huang, Benjamin Y. ; Chera, Bhishamjit S. / Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer. In: Frontiers in Oncology. 2017 ; Vol. 7, No. JAN.
@article{337a4184b11440d88c1c1fb91813ce2b,
title = "Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer",
abstract = "Introduction: Computed tomography (CT), combined positron emitted tomography and CT (PET/CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in head and neck radiation planning. Hybrid PET/MRI has garnered attention for potential added value in cancer staging and treatment planning. Herein, we compare PET/MRI vs. planning CT for head and neck cancer gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation. Material and methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with head and neck cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation to 60-70 Gy using IMRT. We performed pretreatment contrast-enhanced planning CT and gadolinium-enhanced PET/MRI. Primary and nodal volumes were delineated on planning CT (GTV-CT) prospectively before treatment and PET/MRI (GTV-PET/MRI) retrospectively after treatment. GTV-PET/MRI was compared to GTV-CT using separate rigid registrations for each tumor volume. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) metric evaluating spatial overlap and modified Hausdorff distance (mHD) evaluating mean orthogonal distance difference were calculated. Minimum dose to 95{\%} of GTVs (D95) was compared. Results: Eleven patients were evaluable (10 oropharynx, 1 larynx). Nine patients had evaluable primary tumor GTVs and seven patients had evaluable nodal GTVs. Mean primary GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 13.2 and 14.3 cc, with mean intersection 8.7 cc, DSC 0.63, and mHD 1.6 mm. D95 was 65.3 Gy for primary GTV-CT vs. 65.2 Gy for primary GTV-PET/MRI. Mean nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 19.0 and 23.0 cc, with mean intersection 14.4 cc, DSC 0.69, and mHD 2.3 mm. D95 was 62.3 Gy for both nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI. Conclusion: In this series of patients with head and neck (primarily oropharynx) cancer, PET/MRI and CT-GTVs had similar volumes (though there were individual cases with larger differences) with overall small discrepancies in spatial overlap, small mean orthogonal distance differences, and similar radiation doses.",
keywords = "CT, GTV, Head and neck cancer, PET/MRI, Radiation treatment planning",
author = "Kyle Wang and Mullins, {Brandon T.} and Falchook, {Aaron D.} and Jun Lian and Kelei He and Dinggang Shen and Michael Dance and Weili Lin and Sills, {Tiffany M.} and Das, {Shiva K.} and Huang, {Benjamin Y.} and Chera, {Bhishamjit S.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "23",
doi = "10.3389/fonc.2017.00008",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "Frontiers in Oncology",
issn = "2234-943X",
publisher = "Frontiers Media S. A.",
number = "JAN",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of PET/MRI for tumor volume delineation for head and neck cancer

AU - Wang, Kyle

AU - Mullins, Brandon T.

AU - Falchook, Aaron D.

AU - Lian, Jun

AU - He, Kelei

AU - Shen, Dinggang

AU - Dance, Michael

AU - Lin, Weili

AU - Sills, Tiffany M.

AU - Das, Shiva K.

AU - Huang, Benjamin Y.

AU - Chera, Bhishamjit S.

PY - 2017/1/23

Y1 - 2017/1/23

N2 - Introduction: Computed tomography (CT), combined positron emitted tomography and CT (PET/CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in head and neck radiation planning. Hybrid PET/MRI has garnered attention for potential added value in cancer staging and treatment planning. Herein, we compare PET/MRI vs. planning CT for head and neck cancer gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation. Material and methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with head and neck cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation to 60-70 Gy using IMRT. We performed pretreatment contrast-enhanced planning CT and gadolinium-enhanced PET/MRI. Primary and nodal volumes were delineated on planning CT (GTV-CT) prospectively before treatment and PET/MRI (GTV-PET/MRI) retrospectively after treatment. GTV-PET/MRI was compared to GTV-CT using separate rigid registrations for each tumor volume. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) metric evaluating spatial overlap and modified Hausdorff distance (mHD) evaluating mean orthogonal distance difference were calculated. Minimum dose to 95% of GTVs (D95) was compared. Results: Eleven patients were evaluable (10 oropharynx, 1 larynx). Nine patients had evaluable primary tumor GTVs and seven patients had evaluable nodal GTVs. Mean primary GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 13.2 and 14.3 cc, with mean intersection 8.7 cc, DSC 0.63, and mHD 1.6 mm. D95 was 65.3 Gy for primary GTV-CT vs. 65.2 Gy for primary GTV-PET/MRI. Mean nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 19.0 and 23.0 cc, with mean intersection 14.4 cc, DSC 0.69, and mHD 2.3 mm. D95 was 62.3 Gy for both nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI. Conclusion: In this series of patients with head and neck (primarily oropharynx) cancer, PET/MRI and CT-GTVs had similar volumes (though there were individual cases with larger differences) with overall small discrepancies in spatial overlap, small mean orthogonal distance differences, and similar radiation doses.

AB - Introduction: Computed tomography (CT), combined positron emitted tomography and CT (PET/CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in head and neck radiation planning. Hybrid PET/MRI has garnered attention for potential added value in cancer staging and treatment planning. Herein, we compare PET/MRI vs. planning CT for head and neck cancer gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation. Material and methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with head and neck cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation to 60-70 Gy using IMRT. We performed pretreatment contrast-enhanced planning CT and gadolinium-enhanced PET/MRI. Primary and nodal volumes were delineated on planning CT (GTV-CT) prospectively before treatment and PET/MRI (GTV-PET/MRI) retrospectively after treatment. GTV-PET/MRI was compared to GTV-CT using separate rigid registrations for each tumor volume. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) metric evaluating spatial overlap and modified Hausdorff distance (mHD) evaluating mean orthogonal distance difference were calculated. Minimum dose to 95% of GTVs (D95) was compared. Results: Eleven patients were evaluable (10 oropharynx, 1 larynx). Nine patients had evaluable primary tumor GTVs and seven patients had evaluable nodal GTVs. Mean primary GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 13.2 and 14.3 cc, with mean intersection 8.7 cc, DSC 0.63, and mHD 1.6 mm. D95 was 65.3 Gy for primary GTV-CT vs. 65.2 Gy for primary GTV-PET/MRI. Mean nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI size were 19.0 and 23.0 cc, with mean intersection 14.4 cc, DSC 0.69, and mHD 2.3 mm. D95 was 62.3 Gy for both nodal GTV-CT and GTV-PET/MRI. Conclusion: In this series of patients with head and neck (primarily oropharynx) cancer, PET/MRI and CT-GTVs had similar volumes (though there were individual cases with larger differences) with overall small discrepancies in spatial overlap, small mean orthogonal distance differences, and similar radiation doses.

KW - CT

KW - GTV

KW - Head and neck cancer

KW - PET/MRI

KW - Radiation treatment planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012195605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012195605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fonc.2017.00008

DO - 10.3389/fonc.2017.00008

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85012195605

VL - 7

JO - Frontiers in Oncology

JF - Frontiers in Oncology

SN - 2234-943X

IS - JAN

M1 - 8

ER -