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. Issue 4 (24th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, W.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, F.; Xu, M.; Fan, T.; Shao, Q.; Shang, D.
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the esophagus. Volume 27:Issue 4(2014)
• Page Start: 348
• Page End: 354
• Publication Date: 2013-06-24
• Subjects: Esophagus -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.32
• DOI: 10.1111/dote.12089
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-8694

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Summary</title> <p>To compare the target volume, position and matching index of the patient‐specific internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) based on three‐dimensional (3D) and four‐dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) images for primary esophageal cancer. Twenty‐nine patients with primary thoracic esophageal cancer underwent 3DCT and 4DCT scans during free breathing. IGTVs were constructed using three approaches: combining the gross target volumes from the 10 respiratory phases of the 4DCT dataset to produce IGTV<sub>10</sub>; IGTV<sub>2</sub> was acquired by combining the two extreme phases; and IGTV<sub>3D</sub> was created from the 3DCT‐based gross target volume by enlarging the 95th percentile of motion in each direction measured by the 4DCT. 0.16 cm lateral (LR), 0.14 cm anteroposterior (AP) and 0.29 cm superoinferior (SI) in the upper; 0.18 cm LR, 0.10 cm AP and 0.63 cm SI in the middle; and 0.40 cm LR, 0.58 cm AP and 0.82 cm in the lower thoracic esophagus could account for 95% of respiratory‐induced tumor motion. The centroid position shift between IGTV<sub>10</sub> and IGTV<sub>2</sub> was all below 0.10 cm, and less than 0.20 cm between IGTV<sub>10</sub> and IGTV<sub>3D</sub>. IGTV<sub>10</sub> was bigger than IGTV<sub>2</sub>; the mean value of matching index for IGTV<sub>2</sub> to IGTV<sub>10</sub> was 0.87 ± 0.05, 0.85 ± 0.06 and 0.83 ± 0.05 for upper, middle and distal thoracic esophageal tumors, respectively, and just 0.57 ± 0.11, 0.56 ± 0.13 and 0.40 ± 0.03 between IGTV<sub>3D</sub> and IGTV<sub>10</sub>. 4DCT‐based IGTV<sub>10</sub> is a reasonable patient‐specific IGTV for primary thoracic esophageal cancer, and IGTV<sub>2</sub> is considered as an acceptable alternative to IGTV<sub>10</sub>. However, it seems unreasonable to use IGTV<sub>3D</sub> substitute IGTV<sub>10</sub>.</p> </abstract>