Limits...
Comparison of imaging-based gross tumor volume and pathological volume determined by whole-mount serial sections in primary cervical cancer.

Zhang Y, Hu J, Li J, Wang N, Li W, Zhou Y, Liu J, Wei L, Shi M, Wang S, Wang J, Li X, Ma W - Onco Targets Ther (2013)

Bottom Line: No significant difference was observed between GTV-PET and GTV-path (P > 0.05).Spearman correlation analysis showed that GTV-CT, GTV-MRI, and GTV-PET were significantly correlated with GTV-path (P < 0.01).There was no significant difference in the lesion coverage factor among the three modalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, , Xijing Hospital, Xi'an, People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the accuracy of imaging-based gross tumor volume (GTV) compared with pathological volume in cervical cancer.

Methods: Ten patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II cervical cancer were eligible for investigation and underwent surgery in this study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans were taken the day before surgery. The GTVs under MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (GTV-MRI, GTV-PET, GTV-CT) were calculated automatically by Eclipse treatment-planning systems. Specimens of excised uterine cervix and cervical cancer were consecutively sliced and divided into whole-mount serial sections. The tumor border of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections was outlined under a microscope by an experienced pathologist. GTV through pathological image (GTV-path) was calculated with Adobe Photoshop.

Results: The GTVs (average ± standard deviation) delineated and calculated under CT, MRI, PET, and histopathological sections were 19.41 ± 11.96 cm(3), 12.66 ± 10.53 cm(3), 11.07 ± 9.44 cm(3), and 10.79 ± 8.71 cm(3), respectively. The volume of GTV-CT or GTV-MR was bigger than GTV-path, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between GTV-PET and GTV-path (P > 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis showed that GTV-CT, GTV-MRI, and GTV-PET were significantly correlated with GTV-path (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the lesion coverage factor among the three modalities.

Conclusion: The present study showed that GTV defined under 40% of maximum standardized uptake value in PET images was very similar to the pathological volume of cervical cancer. This result should be replicated in a larger number of patients with cervical cancer in a future study of ours.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(A–D) One representative case (case 4) on CT image, MRI, PET image, and H&E image of surgical pathological specimen of cervical cancer. The tumor border is delineated by the red lines on CT (A), MRI (B), and PET (C), and by the black line on whole-mount section of tumor (D).Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3722137&req=5

f3-ott-6-917: (A–D) One representative case (case 4) on CT image, MRI, PET image, and H&E image of surgical pathological specimen of cervical cancer. The tumor border is delineated by the red lines on CT (A), MRI (B), and PET (C), and by the black line on whole-mount section of tumor (D).Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin.

Mentions: The tumor volumes of each case are shown in Table 1. The averages of GTV-CT, GTV-MRI, and GTV-PET were 19.41 ± 11.96 cm3, 12.66 ± 10.53 cm3, and 11.07 ± 9.44 cm3, respectively. The actual pathological volume of tumors was 10.79 ± 8.71 cm3 on average. One case example of CT, MRI, FDG PET imaging, and surgical pathological specimen is representatively shown in Figure 3.


Comparison of imaging-based gross tumor volume and pathological volume determined by whole-mount serial sections in primary cervical cancer.

Zhang Y, Hu J, Li J, Wang N, Li W, Zhou Y, Liu J, Wei L, Shi M, Wang S, Wang J, Li X, Ma W - Onco Targets Ther (2013)

(A–D) One representative case (case 4) on CT image, MRI, PET image, and H&E image of surgical pathological specimen of cervical cancer. The tumor border is delineated by the red lines on CT (A), MRI (B), and PET (C), and by the black line on whole-mount section of tumor (D).Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3722137&req=5

f3-ott-6-917: (A–D) One representative case (case 4) on CT image, MRI, PET image, and H&E image of surgical pathological specimen of cervical cancer. The tumor border is delineated by the red lines on CT (A), MRI (B), and PET (C), and by the black line on whole-mount section of tumor (D).Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; H&E, hematoxylin and eosin.
Mentions: The tumor volumes of each case are shown in Table 1. The averages of GTV-CT, GTV-MRI, and GTV-PET were 19.41 ± 11.96 cm3, 12.66 ± 10.53 cm3, and 11.07 ± 9.44 cm3, respectively. The actual pathological volume of tumors was 10.79 ± 8.71 cm3 on average. One case example of CT, MRI, FDG PET imaging, and surgical pathological specimen is representatively shown in Figure 3.

Bottom Line: No significant difference was observed between GTV-PET and GTV-path (P > 0.05).Spearman correlation analysis showed that GTV-CT, GTV-MRI, and GTV-PET were significantly correlated with GTV-path (P < 0.01).There was no significant difference in the lesion coverage factor among the three modalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, , Xijing Hospital, Xi'an, People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the accuracy of imaging-based gross tumor volume (GTV) compared with pathological volume in cervical cancer.

Methods: Ten patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II cervical cancer were eligible for investigation and underwent surgery in this study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans were taken the day before surgery. The GTVs under MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (GTV-MRI, GTV-PET, GTV-CT) were calculated automatically by Eclipse treatment-planning systems. Specimens of excised uterine cervix and cervical cancer were consecutively sliced and divided into whole-mount serial sections. The tumor border of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections was outlined under a microscope by an experienced pathologist. GTV through pathological image (GTV-path) was calculated with Adobe Photoshop.

Results: The GTVs (average ± standard deviation) delineated and calculated under CT, MRI, PET, and histopathological sections were 19.41 ± 11.96 cm(3), 12.66 ± 10.53 cm(3), 11.07 ± 9.44 cm(3), and 10.79 ± 8.71 cm(3), respectively. The volume of GTV-CT or GTV-MR was bigger than GTV-path, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between GTV-PET and GTV-path (P > 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis showed that GTV-CT, GTV-MRI, and GTV-PET were significantly correlated with GTV-path (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the lesion coverage factor among the three modalities.

Conclusion: The present study showed that GTV defined under 40% of maximum standardized uptake value in PET images was very similar to the pathological volume of cervical cancer. This result should be replicated in a larger number of patients with cervical cancer in a future study of ours.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus