Advertisement

PET/CT-Based Dose Planning in Radiation Therapy

  • Annika Loft
  • Anne Kiil Berthelsen

Abstract

Approximately 50% of cancer patients are estimated to receive radiation therapy as part of their total treatment regimen. External-beam treatment methods most commonly used at the Department of Radiation Oncology at Copenhagen University Hospital include 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), and stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT). Radiation therapy can either cure patients of malignant disease or palliate symptoms caused by malignant disease. Radiation therapy is an inexpensive treatment method compared with, for example, surgery, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy [1]. One of the most pronounced disadvantages of radiation therapy is the acute side effects in normal tissue, e.g., mucous membranes occurring during and after the treatment. Correctly identifying and including all tumor cells in the target volume and avoiding as much normal tissue as possible is the challenge of curative radiation therapy, especially when the new treatment methods, such as 3D-CRT, IMRT, IMAT, and SRT, are used.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Radiation Oncologist Clinical Target Volume Gross Tumor Volume Stereotactic Radiation Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ringborg U, Bergqvist D, Brorsson B et al (2003) The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) systematic overview of radiotherapy for cancer including a prospective survey of radiotherapy practice in Sweden 2001—summary and conclusions. Acta Oncol 42:357–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loft A, Berthelsen Kiil A, Roed H et al (2007) The diagnostic value of PET/CT scanning in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 106:29–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adriaensen M, Schijf L, de Haas M et al (2008) Six synchronous primary neoplasms detected by FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:1931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ishimori T, Patel P, Wahl R (2005) Detection of unexpected additional primary malignancies with PET/CT. J Nucl Med 46:752–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacManus M, Nestle U, Rosenzweig KE et al (2009) Use of PET and PET/CT for radiation therapy planning: IAEA expert report 2006–2007. Radiat Oncol 91:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berthelsen AK, Dobbs J, Kjellén E et al (2007) What’s new in target volume definition for radiologists in ICRU Report 71? How can the ICRU volume definitions be integrated in clinical practice? Cancer Imaging 7:104–116.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al (2007) Clinical impact of FDG-PET/CT in the planning of radiotherapy for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Haematol 78:206–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caldwell CB, Mah K, Skinner M, Danjoux CE (2003) Can PET provide the 3D extent of tumor motion for individualized internal target volumes? A phantom study of the limitations of CT and the promise of PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:1381–1393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caldwell CB, Mah K, Ung YC et al (2001) Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: the impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:923–931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leong T, Everitt C, Yuen K et al (2006) A prospective study to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET on CT-based radiotherapy treatment planning for oesophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol 78:254–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Souvatzoglou M, Grosu AL, Röper B et al (2007) Tumour hypoxia imaging with [18F]FAZA PET in head and neck cancer patients: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1566–1575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajendran JG, Schwartz DL, O’Sullivan J et al (2006) Tumor hypoxia imaging with [F-18] fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography in head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res 12:5435–5441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosu AL, Souvatzoglou M, Röper B et al (2007) Hypoxia imaging with FAZA-PET and theoretical considerations with regard to dose painting for individualization of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:541–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grégoire V, Haustermans k, Geets X et al (2007) PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard? J Nucl Med 48(1suppl):68–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Loft
    • 1
  • Anne Kiil Berthelsen
    • 2
  1. 1.PET & Cyclotron Unit, Dept. of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET, RigshospitaletCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Dept. of Radiation Oncology, RigshospitaletCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations