宫颈癌18F-FDG PET与MR体积测量一致性探讨的PET/MR研究

鲁玥玥; 孙洪赞; 马全美; 辛  军

中国临床医学影像杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (2) : 112-117.

妇产影像学

鲁玥玥，孙洪赞，马全美，辛军

作者信息 +

The consistency investigation of PET volume and MR volume for the cervical cancer using 18F-FDG PET/MR

LU Yue-yue, SUN Hong-zan, MA Quan-mei, XIN Jun

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

目的：在18F-FDG PET/MR对进展期宫颈癌放疗靶区的勾画中，FDG PET自动勾画的肿瘤体积随着最大标准摄取值（SUVmax）不同百分比的阈值而改变，为了减少这种因素对PET和MR图像融合的干扰，我们试图找到一个使PET上宫颈癌肿瘤体积与MR上融合最好的SUVmax的百分阈值。方法：病理活检证实为宫颈癌（ⅡB或以上）的患者被纳入研究，在治疗前进行18F-FDG PET/MRI扫描。由两名有经验的放射科医生来勾画肿瘤的边界。在MR上宫颈癌的体积是通过绘制T2WI MR矢状图像上每一层肿块的轮廓，通过计算每一层的面积乘以层厚得到的。在PET图像上，我们选取20％～60％的SUVmax（间隔5％），软件自动生成肿瘤的体积。记录FDG-PET上不同百分比SUVmax上肿瘤的平均体积和中位体积。采用SPSS 17.0软件用Pearson相关系数分析不同百分比的阈值上自动生成的PET的体积和MR上肿瘤体积的相关性。计算不同百分比SUVmax上PET体积和MR上肿瘤体积的平均差，采用Student’s t检验比较不同百分比SUVmax上PET体积和MR上肿瘤体积的差别。结果：在这项研究中有20名患者符合纳入标准。在MR上原发肿瘤的平均体积为（40.5±28.0） cm3。35% SUVmax值上PET的体积与MRI上肿瘤的平均体积的相关性最高，Pearson相关系数和绝对系数分别为0.888和0.789。而且在35% SUVmax时二者平均体积差异最小，根据Student’s t检验，在35% SUVmax上得到的PET体积与MR体积差值没有统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：我们研究的结果表明，在进展期宫颈癌的靶区勾画中，在35% SUVmax时PET上自动勾画的肿块体积与MRI体积有显著的相关性，35% SUVmax PET体积与MR体积无明显统计学差异。

Abstract

Objective: In advanced cervical cancer radiotherapy target delineation, tumor volumes auto contoured by FDG PET scan change at different percentages of maximum standardized uptake value(SUVmax). To reduce such effect which interferes from PET and MR image fusion, we attempted to get a cutoff SUVmax at which the tumor volume correlates best with MRI volume on the primary tumors of cervical carcinoma. Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven cervical carcinomas(stages ⅡB and above) were included in this study and underwent pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/MRI. The dimensions were measured by two competent radiologists. Counters of the diseases were drawn in each slice on sagittal T2WI MR images, and volumes of the cervical carcinoma were calculated by tumor area multiplying slice profile. Volumes of the FDG PET scan at 20%～60%(with an interval of 5%) of SUVmax were auto calculated. Mean and median volumes of different SUVmax cutoff percentages on FDG-PET scan were recorded. Pearson correlation was used to analyze the correlation of MR and PET volumes at different thresholds with SPSS 17.0. The mean difference values between PET volumes at different thresholds and MR volumes were calculated, the difference between different SUVmax percentage PET volume and MR volume were analyzed by Student’s t test. Results: Data of 20 patients were available for the study. The mean MRI volume of the primary tumor was (40.5±28.0) cm3. The mean MRI volume correlates significantly(P＜0.001) with 35% SUVmax PET volume with good correlation according to the Pearson bivariate correlation(r=0.888, r2=0.789). The mean difference between MRI and PET volumes was the least at 35% SUVmax. There was no significant difference in the MRI and FDG-PET volumes obtained with SUVmax cutoff values of 35% SUVmax(P＞0.05) according to the Student’s t test. Conclusions: 18F-FDG PET-MR SUV-based primary tumor volume estimation at 35% SUVmax value correlates significantly with the criterion standard MR T2WI volumes for primary cervical tumor in our population. The difference of 35% SUVmax PET volume with MR T2WI volume is no statistical significance.

导出引用

鲁玥玥，孙洪赞，马全美，辛军. 宫颈癌18F-FDG PET与MR体积测量一致性探讨的PET/MR研究[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志. 2018, 29(2): 112-117

LU Yue-yue, SUN Hong-zan, MA Quan-mei, XIN Jun. The consistency investigation of PET volume and MR volume for the cervical cancer using 18F-FDG PET/MR[J]. Journal of China Clinic Medical Imaging. 2018, 29(2): 112-117

中图分类号： Ｒ737.33 Ｒ817.4 Ｒ445.2

参考文献

[1]Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012[J]. Cancer J Clin, 2015, 65(2): 87-108.
[2]Du PL, Wu KS, Fang JY, et al. Cervical Cancer Mortality Trends in China, 1991-2013, and Predictions for the Future[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2015, 16(15): 6391-6396.
[3]Brunt JN. Computed tomography-magnetic resonance image registration in radiotherapy treatment planning[J]. Clin Oncol(R Coll Radiol), 2010, 22(8): 688-697.
[4]Jung DC, Ju W, Choi HJ, et al. The validity of tumour diameter assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and gross specimen with regard to tumour volume in cervical cancer patients[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2008, 44(11): 1524-1528.
[5]Schramm G, Langner J, Hofheinz F, et al. Quantitative accuracy of attenuation correction in the Philips ingenuity TF whole-body PET/MR system: a direct comparison with transmission-based attenuation correction[J]. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med, 2013, 26(1): 115-126.
[6]Hideghéty K, Cserháti A, Besenyi Z, et al. Role of 18FDG-PET/CT in the management and gross tumor volume definition for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer; single institution experiences based on long-term follow-up[J]. Magy Onkol, 2015, 59(2): 103-110.
[7]Jani AB, Schreibmann E, Rossi PJ, et al. Impact of 18F-Fluciclovine PET on Target Volume Definition for Post prostatectomy Salvage Radiotherapy: Initial Findings from a Randomized Trial[J]. J Nucl Med, 2017, 58(3): 412-418.
[8]Silvoniemi A, Din MU, Suilamo S, et al. Radiotherapy volume delineation using dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with oropharyngeal cancer: a pilot study[J]. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 2016, 11(11): 2059-2069.
[9]Piroth MD, Galldiks N, Pinkawa M, et al. Relapse patterns after radiochemotherapy of glioblastoma with FET PET-guided boost irradiation and simulation to optimize radiation target volume[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2016, 11(87): 1-9.
[10]Chan J, Carver A, Brunt JN, et al. Effect of androgen deprivation therapy on intraprostatic tumour volume identified on 18F choline PET/CT for prostate dose painting radiotherapy[J]. Br J Radiol, 2017, 90(1071): 20160818.
[11]Kruser TJ, Bradley KA, Bentzen SM, et al. The impact of hybrid PET-CT scan on overall oncologic management, with a focus on radiotherapy planning: a prospective, blinded study[J]. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2009, 8(2): 149-158.
[12]Dolezelova H, Slampa P, Ondrova B, et al. The impact of PET with 18FDG in radiotherapy treatment planning and in the prediction in patients with cervix carcinoma: results of pilot study[J]. Neoplasma, 2008, 55(5): 437-441.
[13]Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, et al. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography(PET/CT): a feasibility study[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2003, 57(3): 853-863.
[14]Fleming S, Cooper RA, Swift SE, et al. Clinical impact of FDG PET-CT on the management of patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma[J]. Clin Radiol, 2014, 69(12): 1235-1243.
[15]Molla M, Anducas N, Simó M, et al. A comparative study of the target volume definition in radiotherapy with Slow CT Scan vs. 4D PET/CT Scan in early stages non-small cell lung cancer[J]. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol, 2016, 35(6): 373-378.
[16]Nestle U, Kremp S, Grosu AL, et al. Practical integration of [18F]-FDG-PET and PET-CT in the planning of radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer(NSCLC): the technical basis, ICRU-target volumes, problems, perspectives[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2006, 81(2): 209-225.
[17]Messa C, Ceresoli GL, Rizzo G, et al. Feasibility of [18F]FDG-PET and coregistered CT on clinical target volume definition of advanced non-small cell lung cancer[J]. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2005, 49(3): 259-266.
[18]Ashamalla H, Rafla S, Parikh K, et al. The contribution of integrated PET/CT to the evolving definition of treatment volumes in radiation treatment planning in lung cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2005, 63(4): 1016-1023.
[19]Grills IS, Yan D, Black QC, et al. Clinical implications of defining the gross tumor volume with combination of CT and 18FDG-positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2007, 67(3): 709-719.
[20]Schaefer A, Kremp S, Hellwig D, et al. A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2008, 35(11): 1989-1999.
[21]Bradley J, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, et al. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in non small cell lung cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2004, 59(1): 78-86.
[22]Erdi YE, Rosenzweig K, Erdi AK, et al. Radiotherapy treatment planning for patients with non-small cell lung cancer using positron emission tomography(PET)[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2002, 62(1): 51-60.
[23]Deniaud-Alexandre E, Touboul E, Lerouge D, et al. Impact of computed tomography and 18F-deoxyglucose coincidence detection emission tomography image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2005, 63(5): 1432-1441.
[24]Ma DJ, Zhu JM, Grigsby PW, et al. Tumor volume discrepancies between FDG-PET and MRI for cervical cancer[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2011, 98(1): 139-142.
[25]Upasani MN, Mahantshetty UM, Rangarajan V, et al. 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography-based gross tumor volume estimation and validation with magnetic resonance imaging for locally advanced cervical cancers[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2012, 22(6): 1031-1036.
[26]Narayan K, Mckenzie A, Fisher R, et al. Estimation of tumor volume in cervical cancer by magnetic resonance imaging[J]. Am J Clin Oncol, 2003, 26(5): e163-e168.
[27]Mayr NA, Taoka T, Yuh WT, et al. Method and timing of tumor volume measurement for outcome prediction in cervical cancer using magnetic resonance imaging[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2002, 52(1): 14-22.
[28]Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Cabrejas ML, et al. Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study[J]. Eur J Nucl Med, 2000, 27(2): 161-169.
[29]Schfer JF, Gatidis S, Schmidt H, et al. Simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging in comparison to PET/CT in pediatric oncology: initial results[J]. Radiology, 2014, 273(1): 220-231.
[30]de Perrot T, Rager O, Scheffler M, et al. Potential of hybrid 18F-fluorocholine PET/MRI for prostate cancer imaging[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2014, 41(9): 1744-1755.
[31]Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, et al. Integrasted PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2015, 42(12): 1814-1824.
[32]Surov A, Meyer HJ, Schob S, et al. Parameters of simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET/MRI predict tumor stage and several histopathological features in uterine cervical cancer[J]. Oncotarget, 2017, 8 (17): 28285-28296.