Comparison of the patient-specific internal gross tumor volume for primary esophageal cancer based separately on three-dimensional and four-dimensional CT simulation images / 中华放射肿瘤学杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To compare the position,volume and matching index (MI) of patientspecific internal gross tumor volume (IGTV)delineated by 4 different approaches based on three- dimensional and four - dimensional CT ( 3 DCT and 4 DCT ) image for primary esophageal cancers.Methods Thirteen patients with primary esophageal cancer underwent 3DCT and 4DCT simulation scans during free breathing,and the patient were divided into group A (tumor located in the proximal thoracic esophagus) and B (tumor located in the mid-and distal thoracic esophagus).IGTV were delineated using four approaches The gross tumor volume (GTV) contours from 10 respiratory phases were combined into IGTV10 ;IGTV2 was acquired by combining the GTV from 0％ and 50％ phases; IGTVMIP was the GTV contour delineated from the maximum intensity projection (MIP) ;IGTV3D was acquired from the enlargement of 3 DCT-based GTV by each spatial direction on the motion amplitude measured in the 4DCT.ResultsTarget movement in lateral (LR),anterio-posterior (AP),superio-inferior (SI) directions showed no statistically significant difference (0.11 cm,0.09 cm,0.18 cm,respectively; χ2 =1.06,P=0.589),and there was no statistically significant difference in centroid positions between IGTV10 and IGTV2 or IGTV3D in group A (t =-2.24,-0.00,P =0.089,- 1.000 ),MI between IGTV10 and IGTV2,IGTV10 and IGTV3D were 0.88,0.54,respectively. For group B, target movement amplitude in SI direction was bigger than in LR, AP ( 0.47 cm,0. 15cm,0. 12 cm,X2= 12.00,P = 0.002).Therewasno significantdifference betweenIGTV10 andIGTV3D inLR, AP, SI ( t =- 0.80.- 0.82,- 1.16,P = 0.450.0.438.0.285 ), MI was 0.59 ; but the target center coordinates was demonstrated significant difference in SI between IGTV10 and ICTV2 for group B ( t = 2.97.P = 0.021 ), Mlwas 0.86.Thevolume of IGTVMIPwassmaller thanIGTV10 ( t =- 2.84,P = 0.025 ), but the position of IGTv10 and ICTVMIp were with no statistically significant difference in the LR,AP,SI ( t =- 0.25,0. 84. - 1.22,P = 0. 809,0.429.0.263 ) ,MIbetweenIGTV10andIGTVMIp was 0.78.Conclusions Patient-specific IGTV can be acquired from 4DCT with correct target coverage while avoiding a geographic miss for the thoracic esophageal cancer,but IGTV2 and IGTVMIP can not contain all the information about primary tumor position,shape.and size at different phases of the respiratory cycle.