Comparison of the Simulation Treatment Planning of Flt and Fdg Pet/Ct in Contouring the Biologic Tumor Volume in Patients with Thoracic Esophageal Carcinoma.

D. Han,J. Yu,G. Zhang,Z. Fu,X. Zhong,W. Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.e14554
IF: 45.3
2010-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e14554 Background: Use the optimal method of 3-deoxy-3-18F- fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT, which was determined by pathologic examination after operation to delineate biological tumor volume in thoracic esophageal carcinoma and make treatment planning for simulation, then compare with that of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Methods: 24 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma detected by FLT and FDG PET/CT were enrolled. We used Treatment Planning System to compare the simulation treatment planning based on the optimal threshold of FLT and FDG PET/CT, respectively. According to the same standard expanded GTV to CTV and PTV. The radiation dose was prescribed as 60 Gy in 30 fractions with conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy technique, the same patient using the same radiotherapy technique such as a five-beam CRT or seven-field IMRT. Results: All of the treatment planning met with >90% of the PTV covered by the prescription isodose line and global hotspot of less than 15%. In the Table, we list the parameters of both FLT and FDG PET/CT planning. The difference in V20 of bilateral lung, V40 of heart and maximal dose received by spinal cord between FLT and FDG were not significantly. While, the values in MLD, V5, V10, V30, V40 and V50 of bilateral lung, MHD, and V30 of heart on FLT PET/CT based planning were significantly lower than that of FDG. Conclusions: FLT PET/CT-based treatment planning brought potential benefits to some OARs such as lungs and heart. Comparison of FLT and FDG PET/CT-based DVH Mean ± SD FLT PET/CT FDG PET/CT t P GTV (cm3) 29.03 ± 36.31 33.05 ± 42.03 -2.619 0.016 CTV (cm3) 244.22 ± 161.94 257.01 ± 160.68 -3.532 0.002 PTV (cm3) 351.29 ± 214.48 379.85 ± 222.00 -4.010 0.001 Total lung V5 (%) 66.1 ± 23.2 69.6 ± 22.8 -5.442 0.000 V10 (%) 49.7 ± 19.1 53.3 ± 19.0 -4.001 0.001 V20 (%) 22.5 ± 6.9 24.0 ± 5.7 -1.601 0.124 V30 (%) 9.7 ± 6.0 11.2 ± 5.4 -2.637 0.015 V40 (%) 4.7 ± 3.3 6.0 ± 4.0 -3.967 0.001 V50 (%) 2.4 ± 1.6 3.2 ± 1.9 -4.842 0.000 MLD (cGy) 1309.1 ± 435.5 1438.4 ± 455.7 -5.109 0.000 Heart V30 (%) 39.7 ± 17.9 43.2 ± 19.1 -3.198 0.004 V40 (%) 18.9 ± 9.7 21.3 ± 11.2 -1.553 0.135 MHD (cGy) 2450.7 ± 886.2 2591.0 ± 882.2 -3.098 0.005 Max cord (cGy) 4257.0 ± 201.1 4261.7 ± 208.2 -0.122 0.904 No significant financial relationships to disclose.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?