Drew H. Smith, D. L. Joon, Michal Schneider, E. Lau, K. Knight, F. Foroudi, V. Khoo
{"title":"通过 FDG-PET 确定原发性肛门癌肿瘤体积--对半自动化方法的初步评估","authors":"Drew H. Smith, D. L. Joon, Michal Schneider, E. Lau, K. Knight, F. Foroudi, V. Khoo","doi":"10.15406/ijrrt.2021.08.00288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Clinician inexperience, intra–observer and inter–observer variations in tumour definition may affect staging, radiotherapy target definition, and treatment outcomes, particularly in rare cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between semi–automated methods of primary anal cancer (AC) definition and our current clinical standard of manual clinician definition using 18F–FDG–PET imaging and to provide recommendations for clinical use. Methods All patients referred for chemoradiotherapy for AC between 2012 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled, with all 18F–FDG–PET imaging acquired within one year of chemoradiotherapy collected. Three methods of primary AC definition were performed on all PET datasets. Manual definition by an experienced radiologist was considered the clinical standard for comparison of volume and coincidence (Dice coefficient) in our study. Semi–automated techniques assessed included a gradient–based SUV (SUV–gradient) method and a SUV threshold method with a range of thresholds relative to SUVmax (40 (T40), 50 (T50) and 60% (T60)). Results Ten patients were enrolled with 33 PET study sets available for analysis. While all methods created contours on pre– and post–treatment scans, manual definition of PET–avid disease was only necessary on 11 of the 33 study sets. SUV–gradient and T40 defined contours were not statistically different in volume to the clinical standard (p = 0.83 & 0.72 respectively). The observed Dice coefficient relative to the manual clinician contours were 0.75 and 0.73 for the SUV–gradient and T40 methods respectively. Conclusions It is possible to define gross AC using SUV–based methods, with the SUV–gradient–based method followed by the T40 method most closely correlating with our current clinical standard. The SUV–gradient–based method studied is housed within a proprietary clinical system. A semi–automated approach that uses a vendor neutral T40 method and the clinician’s knowledge and skill appears optimal in defining AC. With this approach AC may be defined reliably to enhance efficiencies in radiotherapy and nuclear medicine processes, and to support clinicians in identifying and defining this rare disease. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12620000066987. Registered 28 January 2020–Retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620000066987.aspx","PeriodicalId":214028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining primary anal cancer tumour volume on FDG–PET – an initial assessment of semi–automated methods\",\"authors\":\"Drew H. Smith, D. L. Joon, Michal Schneider, E. Lau, K. Knight, F. Foroudi, V. Khoo\",\"doi\":\"10.15406/ijrrt.2021.08.00288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Clinician inexperience, intra–observer and inter–observer variations in tumour definition may affect staging, radiotherapy target definition, and treatment outcomes, particularly in rare cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between semi–automated methods of primary anal cancer (AC) definition and our current clinical standard of manual clinician definition using 18F–FDG–PET imaging and to provide recommendations for clinical use. Methods All patients referred for chemoradiotherapy for AC between 2012 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled, with all 18F–FDG–PET imaging acquired within one year of chemoradiotherapy collected. Three methods of primary AC definition were performed on all PET datasets. Manual definition by an experienced radiologist was considered the clinical standard for comparison of volume and coincidence (Dice coefficient) in our study. Semi–automated techniques assessed included a gradient–based SUV (SUV–gradient) method and a SUV threshold method with a range of thresholds relative to SUVmax (40 (T40), 50 (T50) and 60% (T60)). Results Ten patients were enrolled with 33 PET study sets available for analysis. While all methods created contours on pre– and post–treatment scans, manual definition of PET–avid disease was only necessary on 11 of the 33 study sets. SUV–gradient and T40 defined contours were not statistically different in volume to the clinical standard (p = 0.83 & 0.72 respectively). The observed Dice coefficient relative to the manual clinician contours were 0.75 and 0.73 for the SUV–gradient and T40 methods respectively. Conclusions It is possible to define gross AC using SUV–based methods, with the SUV–gradient–based method followed by the T40 method most closely correlating with our current clinical standard. The SUV–gradient–based method studied is housed within a proprietary clinical system. A semi–automated approach that uses a vendor neutral T40 method and the clinician’s knowledge and skill appears optimal in defining AC. With this approach AC may be defined reliably to enhance efficiencies in radiotherapy and nuclear medicine processes, and to support clinicians in identifying and defining this rare disease. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12620000066987. Registered 28 January 2020–Retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620000066987.aspx\",\"PeriodicalId\":214028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15406/ijrrt.2021.08.00288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15406/ijrrt.2021.08.00288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的 临床医师经验不足、观察者内部和观察者之间在肿瘤定义方面的差异可能会影响分期、放疗靶点定义和治疗效果,特别是在罕见癌症中。本研究旨在评估原发性肛门癌(AC)定义的半自动化方法与目前临床医生使用 18F-FDG-PET 成像进行人工定义的临床标准之间的相关性,并为临床使用提供建议。方法 对 2012 年至 2016 年期间转诊接受化放疗的所有原发性肛门癌患者进行前瞻性研究,收集化放疗后一年内获得的所有 18F-FDG-PET 成像。对所有 PET 数据集采用三种方法进行原发性 AC 定义。在我们的研究中,由经验丰富的放射科医生手动定义被认为是比较体积和重合度(Dice系数)的临床标准。评估的半自动技术包括基于梯度的 SUV(SUV-梯度)方法和 SUV 阈值方法,阈值范围相对于 SUVmax(40 (T40)、50 (T50) 和 60% (T60))。结果 10 名患者入选,33 组 PET 研究数据可供分析。虽然所有方法都能在治疗前和治疗后扫描中创建轮廓,但在 33 组研究中,只有 11 组需要手动定义 PET-avid 疾病。SUV梯度和T40定义的等值线在体积上与临床标准没有统计学差异(p = 0.83 和 0.72)。相对于临床医生的人工轮廓,SUV 梯度法和 T40 法观察到的 Dice 系数分别为 0.75 和 0.73。结论 使用基于 SUV 的方法可以定义毛细血管畸形,其中基于 SUV 梯度的方法和 T40 方法与我们目前的临床标准最为接近。所研究的基于 SUV 梯度的方法安装在一个专有的临床系统中。使用供应商中立的 T40 方法以及临床医生的知识和技能的半自动方法似乎是定义 AC 的最佳方法。采用这种方法可以可靠地定义 AC,从而提高放射治疗和核医学流程的效率,并为临床医生识别和定义这种罕见疾病提供支持。试验注册号:ANZCTR,ACTRN12620000066987。2020年1月28日注册-回顾注册,https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620000066987.aspx
Defining primary anal cancer tumour volume on FDG–PET – an initial assessment of semi–automated methods
Purpose Clinician inexperience, intra–observer and inter–observer variations in tumour definition may affect staging, radiotherapy target definition, and treatment outcomes, particularly in rare cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between semi–automated methods of primary anal cancer (AC) definition and our current clinical standard of manual clinician definition using 18F–FDG–PET imaging and to provide recommendations for clinical use. Methods All patients referred for chemoradiotherapy for AC between 2012 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled, with all 18F–FDG–PET imaging acquired within one year of chemoradiotherapy collected. Three methods of primary AC definition were performed on all PET datasets. Manual definition by an experienced radiologist was considered the clinical standard for comparison of volume and coincidence (Dice coefficient) in our study. Semi–automated techniques assessed included a gradient–based SUV (SUV–gradient) method and a SUV threshold method with a range of thresholds relative to SUVmax (40 (T40), 50 (T50) and 60% (T60)). Results Ten patients were enrolled with 33 PET study sets available for analysis. While all methods created contours on pre– and post–treatment scans, manual definition of PET–avid disease was only necessary on 11 of the 33 study sets. SUV–gradient and T40 defined contours were not statistically different in volume to the clinical standard (p = 0.83 & 0.72 respectively). The observed Dice coefficient relative to the manual clinician contours were 0.75 and 0.73 for the SUV–gradient and T40 methods respectively. Conclusions It is possible to define gross AC using SUV–based methods, with the SUV–gradient–based method followed by the T40 method most closely correlating with our current clinical standard. The SUV–gradient–based method studied is housed within a proprietary clinical system. A semi–automated approach that uses a vendor neutral T40 method and the clinician’s knowledge and skill appears optimal in defining AC. With this approach AC may be defined reliably to enhance efficiencies in radiotherapy and nuclear medicine processes, and to support clinicians in identifying and defining this rare disease. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12620000066987. Registered 28 January 2020–Retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620000066987.aspx