A comparative study of the normal oesophageal wall thickness based on 3-dimensional, 4-dimensional, and cone beam computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare normal oesophageal wall thickness based on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT), 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: Contrast-enhanced 3DCT, 4DCT, and CBCT scans were acquired from 50 patients with lung cancer or metastatic lung cancer. The outer oesophageal wall was manually contoured on each 3DCT, the maximum intensity projection of 4DCT (4DCTMIP) the end expiration phase of 4DCT (4DCT50) (the end expiration phase of 4DCT) and the CBCT data sets. The average wall thicknesses were measured (defined as R3DCT, R50, RMIP, and RCBCT). RESULTS: Whether for thoracic or for intra-abdominal segments, there were no significant differences between R3DCT and R50, but significant differences between R3DCT and RMIP, R3DCT and RCBCT. For upper and middle oesophagus, RCBCT were larger than RMIP. There was no significant difference between upper and middle segments on 3DCT, 4DCT, and CBCT. Intra-abdominal oesophageal wall thickness was greater than that of thoracic oesophagus. There were no differences between upper and lower, and middle and lower oesophagus on CBCT. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate normal oesophageal wall thickness differed along the length of oesophagus whatever it was delineated on 3DCT, 4DCT (4DCT50 and 4DCTMIP) or CBCT. It is reasonable to use uniform criterion to identify normal esophageal wall thickness when delineating gross tumor volume on 3DCT and 4DCT50, the same is true of delineating internal gross tumor volume on 4DCTMIP or CBCT images for lower and intra-abdominal oesophagus. But, in spite of using contrast-enhanced scanning, relatively blurred boundary on the CBCT images is noteworthy, especially for upper and middle thoracic esophagus.

Changes in cardiac volume determined with repeated enhanced 4DCT during chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is considered curative intent treatment for patients with non-operative esophageal cancer. Radiation-induced heart damage receives much attention. We performed repeated four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) to detect changes in cardiac volume during radiotherapy for esophageal cancer patients, and explored potential factors responsible for those changes. METHODS: Forty-six patients with esophageal cancer underwent enhanced 4DCT and three-dimensional (3D) CT scans before radiotherapy and every 10 fractions during treatment. The heart was contoured on 3DCT images, 4DCT end expiratory (EE) images and 4DCT maximum intensity projection (MIP) images by the same radiation oncologist. Heart volumes and other relative parameters were compared by the SPSS software package, version 19.0. RESULTS: Compared with its initial value, heart volume was smaller at the 10th fraction (reduction = 3.27%, 4.45% and 4.52% on 3DCT, EE and MIP images, respectively, p < 0.05) and the 20th fraction (reduction = 6.05%, 5.64% and 4.51% on 3DCT, EE and MIP images, respectively, p < 0.05), but not at the 30th fraction. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced (by 16.95 ± 16.69 mmHg and 7.14 ± 11.64 mmHg, respectively, both p < 0.05) and the heart rate was elevated by 5.27 ± 6.25 beats/min (p < 0.05) after radiotherapy. None of the potential explanatory variables correlated with heart volume changes. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac volume reduced significantly from an early treatment stage and maintained the reduction until the middle stage. The heart volume changes observed on 3DCT and 4DCT were consistent during radiotherapy. The changes in heart volume, blood pressure and heart rate may be valuable indicators of cardiac impairment and target dose changes.

Comparison of gross tumor volume of primary oesophageal cancer based on contrast-enhanced three-dimensional, four-dimensional, and cone beam computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: To explore motion information included in 3DCT, 4DCT and CBCT by comparing volumetric and positional differences of GTV. RESULTS: Independent of tumor location, significant differences were observed among volumes [IGTV10 > (IGTVCBCT or IGTVMIP) > (GTV3D or GTV4D50)]. The underestimations or overestimations between IGTV10 and IGTVCBCT were larger than those between IGTV10 and IGTVMIP (p < 0.001-0.011; p < 0.001-0.023). For upper oesophageal tumors, GTV4D50/IGTVCBCT negatively correlated with motion vector (r = -0.756, p = 0.011). In AP direction, the centroid coordinates of IGTVCBCT differed from GTV3D, GTV4D50, IGTVMIP and IGTV10 (p = 0.006, 0.013, 0.038, and 0.010). For middle oesophageal tumors, IGTV10/IGTVCBCT positively correlated with motion vector (r = 0.695, p = 0.006). The centroid coordinates of IGTVCBCT differed from those of IGTV10 (p = 0.046) in AP direction. For distal oesophageal tumors, the centroid coordinates of IGTVCBCT showed significant differences to those of IGTVMIP (p = 0.042) in LR direction. For both middle and distal tumors, the degrees of associations of IGTV10 outside IGTVCBCT significantly correlated with the motion vector (r = 0.540, p = 0.046; r = 0.678, p = 0.031). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four oesophageal cancer patients underwent 3DCT, 4DCT and CBCT. GTV3D, GTV4D50, internal GTVMIP (IGTVMIP) and IGTVCBCT were delineated on 3DCT, 4DCT50, 4DCTMIP and CBCT. GTVs from 10 respiratory phases were combined to produce GTV10. Differences in volume, position for different targets, correlation between volume ratio and motion vector were evaluated. The motion vector was the spatial moving of the target centroid position. CONCLUSIONS: IGTVCBCT encompasses more motion information than GTV3D and GTV4D50 for upper oesophageal tumors, but slightly less than IGTV10 for middle and distal oesophageal tumors. IGTVCBCT incorporated similar motion information to IGTVMIP. However, motion information encompassed in CBCT and MIP cannot replace each other.

Comparative evaluation of CT-based and PET/4DCT-based planning target volumes in the radiation of primary esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare planning target volume (PTV) defined by PET combined with 4DCT to 3DCT and 4DCT. METHODS: Eighteen (18/30) esophageal cancer patients who underwent 3DCT, 4DCT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT thoracic simulation with SUVmax≥2.0 of the primary volume were enrolled. CTV3D was formed on 3DCT by adding a margin of 30 mm in cranial-caudal direction and 5 mm in transversal direction. PTV3D was defined using a 10 mm margin to CTV3D and CTV4D was obtained by fusion of CTV from ten phases of 4DCT. A 5 mm margin for setup errors to CTV4D was to form PTV4D. BTVPET was generated with the assumption that motion was captured in PET images using a thresholding methods: 20% SUVmax. CTV(PET) 4DCT was calculated by the union of BTVPET and CTV4D, and a 5 mm margin to CTV(PET) 4DCT was used to form PTV(PET) 4DCT. The geometrical differences of the targets were evaluated. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed among CTV3D, CTV4D and CTV(PET) 4DCT (CTV(PET) 4DCT>CTV4D>CTV3D, P=0.000-0.038). PTV3D, PTV4D, and PTV(PET) 4DCT also differed significantly from each other (PTV(PET) 4DCT>PTV4D>PTV3D, P=0.000-0.048). The DI of PTV3D in PTV(PET) 4DCT was significantly larger than that of PTV3D in PTV 4D (P=0.042). There were no significant differences between the DI of PTV4D in PTV3D and PTV(PET) 4DCT in PTV3D (P=0.118). CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated by the assessment of the geometrical differences in PET/4DCT-based and 3DCT-based PTV, PET/4DCT could affect not only the volume of PTV but also its shape.

Comparison of primary target volumes delineated on four-dimensional CT and 18 F-FDG PET/CT of non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To determine the optimal threshold of 18 F-fluorodexyglucose (18 F-FDG) positron emission tomography CT (PET/CT) images that generates the best volumetric match to internal gross target volume (IGTV) based on four-dimensional CT (4DCT) images. METHODS: Twenty patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) underwent enhanced three-dimensional CT (3DCT) scan followed by enhanced 4DCT scan of the thorax under normal free breathing with the administration of intravenous contrast agents. A total of 100 ml of ioversol was injected intravenously, 2 ml/s for 3DCT and 1 ml/s for 4DCT. Then 18 F-FDG PET/CT scan was performed based on the same positioning parameters (the same immobilization devices and identical position verified by laser localizer as well as skin marks). Gross target volumes (GTVs) of the primary tumor were contoured on the ten phases images of 4DCT to generate IGTV10. GTVPET were determined with eight different threshold using an auto-contouring function. The differences in the position, volume, concordance index (CI) and degree of inclusion (DI) of the targets between GTVPET and IGTV10 were compared. RESULTS: The images from seventeen patients were suitable for further analysis. Significant differences between the centric coordinate positions of GTVPET (excluding GTVPET15%) and IGTV10 were observed only in z axes (P < 0.05). GTVPET15%, GTVPET25% and GTVPET2.0 were not statistically different from IGTV10 (P < 0.05). GTVPET15% approximated closely to IGTV10 with median percentage volume changes of 4.86%. The best CI was between IGTV10 and GTVPET15% (0.57). The best DI of IGTV10 in GTVPET was IGTV10 in GTVPET15% (0.80). CONCLUSION: None of the PET-based contours had both close spatial and volumetric approximation to the 4DCT IGTV10. At present 3D-PET/CT should not be used for IGTV generation.