Advertisement

Current Oncology Reports

, 20:84 | Cite as

Evaluating the Use of 18F-FDG PET CT for External Beam Radiotherapy Planning in Gynaecological Malignancies

  • Ashleigh Kerr
  • Nicholas Reed
  • Rosie Harrand
  • Kathryn Graham
  • Azmat H. SadozyeEmail author
Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Gynecologic Cancers

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To evaluate the evidence for the use of fluorine-18-fluorodeoyglucose (18F-FDG) PET CT in external beam radiotherapy planning for treatment of gynaecological malignancies.

Recent Findings

Our review confirms that the incorporation of 18F-FDG PET CT during radiotherapy planning may decrease inter-observer variability during target delineation. It can also provide useful functional information regarding the tumour, which may facilitate the development of techniques for dose escalation and ‘dose painting’ not only for primary disease, especially in cervical cancer, but also nodal metastasis.

Summary

The utilisation of this functional modality in external beam radiotherapy planning, particularly in locally advanced cervical malignancy, is an exciting topic that warrants further prospective research. Perhaps the most valuable role may be the potential to deliver dose escalation to 18F-FDG PET CT avid targets previously limited by organ at risk constraints, now that we have significantly more advanced radiotherapy planning tools at our disposal.

Keywords

Radiotherapy planning Cervical cancer PET CT Gynaecological malignancies EBRT 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ashleigh Kerr, Nicholas Reed, Rosie Harrand, Kathryn Graham, and Azmat H. Sadozye declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1577–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeraj R, Bradshaw T, Simon U. Molecular imaging to plan radiotherapy and evaluate its efficacy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(11):1752–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Troost E, Thorwarth D, Oyen W. Imaging-based treatment adaptation in radiation oncology. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(12):1922–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jelercic S, Rajer M. The role of PET-CT in radiotherapy planning of solid tumours. Radiol Oncol. 2015;49(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller T, Grigsby P. Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(2):353–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kidd E, Siegel B, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Mutch D, Powell M, et al. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in cervical Cancer: relationship to prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2108–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mehenna H, Wong WL, McConkey C, Rahman J, Robinson M, Hartley A, et al. PET-CT surveillance versus neck dissection in advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1444–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nestle U, Kremp S, Grosu 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. Radiother Oncol. 2006;81:209–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sugwara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, Recker BE, Kison PV, Wahl RL. Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(7):1125–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(17):3745–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Management of cervical cancer: a national clinical guideline [Internet]. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2008 [cited 2 February 2018]. Available from: http://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign99.pdf.
  12. 12.
    Scottish Cancer Task Force. Cervical cancer: clinical quality performance indicators [Internet]. Health Care Improvement Scotland; 2016 [cited 3 March 2018]. Available from: http://healthcareimprovementscotland.org/his/idoc.ashx?docid=d48b66ab-c7f0...1.
  13. 13.
    Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC, Danjoux CE, Balogh JM, Ganguli SN, et al. Observer variation in contouring gross tumour volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumours on CT: the impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:923–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aerts H, Lambin P, Ruysscher D. FDG for dose painting: a rational choice. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97(2):163–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    İğdem Ş, Alço G, Ercan T, Ünalan B, Kara B, Geceer G, et al. The application of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in radiation treatment planning: effect on gross target volume definition and treatment management. Clin Oncol. 2010;22(3):173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kruser T, Bradley K, Bentzen S, Anderson B, Gondi V, Khuntia D, et al. The impact of hybrid PET-CT scan on overall oncologic management, with a focus on radiotherapy planning: a prospective, blinded study. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2009;8(2):149–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tejwani A, Lavaf A, Swamy U, Emmolo J, Guirguis A, Mokhtar B, et al. The role of PET/CT in treatment planning and evaluation of response for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(3):S143–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Upasani M, Mahantshetty U, Rangarajan V, Purandare N, Merchant N, Thakur M, 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. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(6):1031–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Arnesen M, Rekstad B, Stokke C, Bruheim K, Løndalen A, Hellebust T, et al. Short-course PET based simultaneous integrated boost for locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11(1):39. Authors have demonstrated how PET CT integrated into planning could be utilized for dose escalation/dose painting. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix and endometrium. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;105:103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lazzari R, Cecconi A, Jereczek-Fossa B, Travaini L, Dell’Acqua V, Cattani F, et al. The role of 18F FDG-PET/CT in staging and treatment planning for volumetric modulated Rapidarc radiotherapy in cervical cancer: experience of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Chung Y, Horng C, Lee P, Chen F. Patterns of failure after use of 18F-FDG PET/CT in integration of extended-field chemo-IMRT and 3D-brachytherapy plannings for advanced cervical cancers with extensive lymph node metastases. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):179. Provides evidence to support that dose escalation based on PET CT-integrated planning is deliverable and generates the hypothesis that such dose escalation may be clinically meaningful. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Viswanathan A, Beriwal S, De Los Santos J, Demanes D, Gaffney D, Hansen J, et al. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix Part II: high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2012;11(1):47–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Small W, Winter K, Levenback C, Iyer R, Gaffney D, Asbell S, et al. Extended-field irradiation and intracavitary brachytherapy combined with cisplatin chemotherapy for cervical cancer with positive para-aortic or high common iliac lymph nodes: results of ARM 1 of RTOG 0116. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(4):1081–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cihoric N, Tapia C, Krüger K, Aebersold D, Klaeser B, Lössl K. IMRT with 18FDG-PET\CT based simultaneous integrated boost for treatment of nodal positive cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2 February 2018];9(1):83. Available from: http://www.ro-journal.com/content/9/1/83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    • Esthappan J, Chaudhari S, Santanam L, Mutic S, Olsen J, MacDonald D, et al. Prospective clinical trial of positron emission tomography/computed tomography image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy for cervical carcinoma with positive para-aortic lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(4):1134–9. One of the earlier studies confirming the feasibility of using PET CT-integrated planning for dose escalation. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vees H, Casanova N, Zilli T, Imperiano H, Ratib O, Popowski Y et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT on target volume delineation in recurrent or residual gynaecologic carcinoma. Radiat Oncol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2 February 2018];7(1):176. Available from: http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Boer S, Powell M, Mileshkin L, Katsaros D, Bessette P, Haie-Meder C, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):295–309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, González-Martín A, Ledermann J, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):2–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simcock B, Narayan K, Drummond E, Bernshaw D, Wells E, Hicks RJ. The role of positron emission tomography in planning radiotherapy in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(4):645–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gorospe L, Jover-Diaz R, Vincente-Bartulos A. Spectrum of PET-CT pelvic pitfalls in patients with gynaecologic malignancies. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37:1041–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashleigh Kerr
    • 1
  • Nicholas Reed
    • 1
  • Rosie Harrand
    • 1
  • Kathryn Graham
    • 1
  • Azmat H. Sadozye
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Beatson West of Scotland Cancer CentreGartnavel General HospitalGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations