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.

A comparison of dosimetric variance for external-beam partial breast irradiation using three-dimensional and four-dimensional computed tomography.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential dosimetric benefits from four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) compared with three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) in radiotherapy treatment planning for external-beam partial breast irradiation (EB-PBI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 3DCT and 4DCT scan sets were acquired for 20 patients who underwent EB-PBI. The volume of the tumor bed (TB) was determined based on seroma or surgical clips on 3DCT images (defined as TB3D) and the end inhalation (EI) and end exhalation (EE) phases of 4DCT images (defined as TBEI and TBEE, respectively). The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the TB plus a 1.0 cm margin. The planning target volume (PTV) was the CTV plus 0.5 cm (defined as PTV3D, PTVEI, and PTVEE). For each patient, a conventional 3D conformal plan (3D-CRT) was generated (defined as EB-PBI3D, EB-PBIEI, and EB-PBIEE). RESULTS: The PTV3D, PTVEI, and PTVEE were similar (P=0.549), but the PTV coverage of EB-PBI3D was significantly less than that of EB-PBIEI or EB-PBIEE (P=0.001 and P=0.025, respectively). There were no significant differences in the homogeneity or conformity indexes between the three treatment plans (P=0.125 and P=0.536, respectively). The EB-PBI3D plan resulted in the largest organs at risk dose. CONCLUSION: There was a significant benefit for patients when using 3D-CRT based on 4DCT for EB-PBI with regard to reducing nontarget organ exposure. Respiratory motion did not affect the dosimetric distribution during free breathing, but might result in poor dose coverage when the PTV is determined using 3DCT.

Effect of contrast enhancement in delineating GTV and constructing IGTV of thoracic oesophageal cancer based on 4D-CT scans.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of contrast enhancement on delineating the gross tumour volumes (GTVs) of different respiratory phases and constructing the corresponding internal GTVs (IGTVs) of primary thoracic oesophageal cancer based on four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) scans. METHODS: Forty-five patients with upper (14 cases), middle (16 cases), or lower (15 cases) thoracic oesophageal cancer sequentially underwent conventional plain and contrast-enhanced 4D-CT scans during free breathing. First, the GTVs were delineated on plain 4D-CT, and the corresponding IGTVs were constructed by a physician. Then the GTVs were delineated on contrast-enhanced 4D-CT images, and the corresponding IGTVs were constructed by the same physician using the same standards. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation for the target volume delineated on contrast-enhanced 4D-CT images was constantly smaller than that for plain 4D-CT images. The length of the GTVs along the z axis, as well as the volumes of the GTVs that were delineated and the IGTVs that were constructed, did not change between contrast-enhanced and plain 4D-CT images in patients with upper or lower thoracic oesophageal cancer (P>0.05), but showed significant differences in patients with middle thoracic oesophageal cancer (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced 4D-CT scans can reduce the error of target volume delineation and be used to construct a more accurate internal target volume in patients with middle thoracic oesophageal cancer, however, whether GTV delineation or IGTV construction for patients with upper or lower thoracic oesophageal cancer, no significant benefit was found from contrast-enhanced 4D-CT scan.

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.