Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Pet And Radiotherapy For Head And Neck

3,780

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,780
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
164
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. PET and Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: today and tomorrow… Vincent GREGOIRE, M.D., Ph.D. Head and Neck Oncology Program, Radiation Oncology Dept., & Center for Molecular Imaging and Experimental Radiotherapy, Université Catholique de Louvain, St-Luc University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 2. Potential added-value of PET in oncology S / RxTh / CH Work-up-staging prognostic evaluation GTV/CTV Selection/delineation Functional Image-guided IMRT Early response FDG evaluation C-methionine EF3 - F-miso - CuATSM Final response BFU - FLT evaluation … Early detection of recurrence MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 3. Imaging in radiotherapy: … today and tomorrow … • Selection of Target Volumes with FDG-PET • Delineation of GTV with FDG-PET • Selection / delineation of CTV MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 4. The use of FDG-PET for the selection of Target Volume: setting the scene Laryngeal SCC: T2-N1-M0 Q: unilateral vs bilateral neck irradiation? A: highly sensitive examination MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 5. Detection of metastatic disease in the neck • N=106 patients • oral cavity tumors • Neck dissection for all patients (2196 lymph nodes) Sensitivity Specificity Accuracy NPV PPV PET 70% 82% 75% 71% 81% CT 66% 69% 70% 66% 74% MRI 64% 69% 66% 62% 71% US 84% 68% 76% 79% 75% MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Stuckensen et al., 2000
  • 6. Potential added-value of PET in oncology Comparison between CT and FDG-PET for nodal staging. Site Sensitivity Specificity CT FDG-PET CT FDG-PET Head and neck cancer 36-86% 50-96% 56-100% 88-100% NSC lung cancer 45% 80-90% 85% 85-100% Cervix carcinoma 57-73%1 75-91% 83-100%1 92-100% Esophageal cancer 11-87% 30-78% 28-99% 86-98% 1 CT or MRI MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Grégoire, 2004
  • 7. Potential added-value of PET in oncology Comparison between PET and PET/CT for N staging (n=260) Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) PPV NPV PET/CT 92 93 88 94 PET+CT 88 89 83 92 PET 85 88 82 90 CT 64 83 70 79 MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Antoch et al., 2004
  • 8. Target MAESTRO Jan. 2007 J. John, 1974
  • 9. The Gross Tumor volume (GTV) MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Daisne et al., Radiology, 233: 93-100, 2004
  • 10. The Gross Tumor volume (GTV) MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Daisne et al, 2004
  • 11. From PET image to tumor: a fixed threshold? GTV (ml) Patient Surgical 40% 50% Specimen 1 8.3 23.3 11.8 55.1 2 5.2 10.9 6.7 55.7 3 30.9 29.7 21.7 38.6 4 4.1 8 5.3 57 5 5.6 37.9 19.2 70.9 6 8.6 9.7 6.6 43.2 7 17.3 35.9 25.5 59 8 15.4 41.8 28.3 67.5 9 24.3 39.9 30 56.5 mean 13.3 26.5* 17.2 55.9 MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets et al, 2006
  • 12. Functional imaging and automatic segmentation Volume delineation based on automatic thresholding with 18F-FDG MAESTRO Daisne et al, 2003 Jan. 2007 Geets et al, 2004
  • 13. Imaging modalities, TVs and dose distribution MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 14. Image-Guided Radiation Therapy in HNSCC Impact of imaging modality on CTV/PTV delineation Larynx/hypopharynx (n=9) Oropharynx (n=10) 200 Average (± sem) volume (cc) CT-scan 250 CT-scan Average (± sem) volume (cc) FDG-PET FDG-PET 150 200 ANOVA: p<0.05 ANOVA: p<0.01 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 GTV CTV PTV GTV CTV PTV MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets et al, 2003
  • 15. Image-Guided Radiation Therapy in HNSCC Impact of imaging modality on dose distribution MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets et al, 2006
  • 16. Conformal radiotherapy and IMRT in Head and Neck Tumors DAHANCA: http://www.dshho.suite.dk/dahanca/guidelines.html EORTC: http://www.eortc.be/home/ Radio/EDUCATION.htm MAESTRO RTOG: http://www.rtog.org/hnatlas/main.htm Jan. 2007
  • 17. CT-based delineation of lymph node levels in the neck: Brussels- Rotterdam consensus guidelines Level II Ant. submandibular gland post. belly of digastric m. Post. sternocleidomastoid m. LII Lat. sternocleidomastoid m. Med. paraspinal m. int. carotid artery LV Cra. lateral process of C1 Cau. hyoid bone MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 18. Imaging in radiotherapy: … today and tomorrow … • Atlases • Adaptive Target Volume delineation • Non-rigid registration • Adaptive dose distribution • Other PET tracers MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 19. H&N IMRT practice heterogeneity Atlases? MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Harari et al., 2005
  • 20. CT MRI (T2) FDG-PET PRE-R/ (Week 2) WEEK 3 (Week 4) WEEK 5 MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 21. Biological adaptive IMRT Before R/ Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 R/ start Images acquisitions CT MR T2 FS MR T2 FDG-PET Anatomic imaging Dynamic FDG-PET • 10 patients with stage III-IV pharyngo-laryngeal SCC treated by CT -RT • Images acquired before R/ and during RT after means doses of 14, 25, 35 and 45 Gy. MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets, 2006
  • 22. PET image segmentation during RxTh UG 4mm Raw image SBR Image processing Image segmentation MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Lee & Geets 2006
  • 23. PET image segmentation during RxTh UG 4mm SBR Raw image Image processing Image segmentation BG 6mm + deconvolution W&C MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Lee & Geets 2006
  • 24. PET image segmentation Patient Surgical Threshold- Gradient-based No specimen based method method  Phantom images 1 4.1 8.7 4.7  Synthetic phantom images 2 5.2 7.4 5.5  Jaszczak phantom (6 spheres) 3 5.6 16.3 8.2  Patient images 4 15.4 37.2 19.7  Total laryngectomy 5 17.3 35.4 25.3 (surgical specimen is frozen, frozen, 6 24.3 34.1 25 sliced, 7 30.9 33.4 27.8 digitized, delineated, and registred) mean 14.7 24.7* 16.6** * in comparison with surgical specimens, p = 0.014 (Student’s t-test) ** in comparison with surgical specimens, p = 0.19 (Student’s t-test) MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Lee & Geets 2006
  • 25. Impact on TV delineation P<0.001 MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets, 2006
  • 26. Impact on TV delineation Classic CT-based planning Adaptive PET-based planning P<0.001 Planning V10 V50 V80 V90 V95 V100 Classic CT-based 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adaptive CT-based 99% 100% 100% 85% 80% 66% Classic PET-based 99% 99% 98% 83% 82% 81% Adaptive PET-based 99% 100% 98% 73% 67% 58% MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets, 2006
  • 27. Image registration… Reference image Rigid registration Non-rigid registration MAESTRO Loeckx & Maes Jan. 2007 ESAT, 2004
  • 28. Image registration… Week 0 Week 3 30 Gy SIB MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Parraga, Castadot & Lee, 2006
  • 29. Image registration… Differential dysplay MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Parraga, Castadot & Lee, 2006
  • 30. Image registration… Week 3 Week 3 on week 0 Non-rigid Registration (Samba) MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Parraga, Castadot & Lee, 2006
  • 31. Dose registration… Time 1 (t1) Deformed checkerboard showing the non- rigid Deformed dose at t1 transformation from t1 to t2 Deformed contour on CT at t2 Time 2 (t2) MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Lee, 2006
  • 32. Other PET tracers… Hypoxia: 18F-EF3 Metabolism: 18F-FDG 11C-Met Proliferation: 76Br-BFU MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 33. From microscopy to PET images… CT-scan MRI µPET-scan Autoradiography MAESTRO Jan. 2007 N. Christian, 2006
  • 34. Conclusions: future challenges … • Target Volume selection and delineation • Adaptive IMRT: geometrical, biological & dosimetrical •which imaging modalities?? •which biological pathways?? •which volume/dose registration algorithms?? •how frequently?? • Clinical validation MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 35. Acknowledgements • Communication and Remote Sensing Lab. Alois du BOIS d’AISCHE, Eng. Pierre-François d’HAESE, Eng. Benoit MACQ,Eng., Ph.D. • ENT and Head & Neck surgery Marc HAMOIR, M.D. Philippe ROMBAUX, M.D. • Imaging Emmanuel COCHE, M.D. Thierry DUPREZ, M.D. Max LONNEUX, M.D. • Oral & Maxillo-Facial surgery Pierre MAHY, M.D. Hervé REYCHLER, M.D., D.M.D. • Pathology Birgit WEYNAND, M.D. • PET laboratory Anne BOL, Ph.D. Daniel LABARE, Ph.D. • Radiation Oncology Nicholas CHRISTIAN, M.D. Jean-François DAISNE, M.D., Ph.D. Xavier GEETS, M.D. John LEE, eng., Ph.D. Pierre SCALLIET, M.D., Ph.D. MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Milan TOMSEJ, M. Sc.
  • 36. Acknowledgements • KULeuven, Radiation Oncology Karin HAUSTERMANS, M.D., Ph.D. Sarah ROELS, M.D. Tom DEPUYDT, Ph.D. Pieter SLAGMOLEN, Eng. • KULeuven, ESAT Frederic MAES, Eng., Ph.D Frederic LOECKX, Eng. MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 37. Target selection and delineation Betrayal of images This is not an apple… R. Magritte MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 38. MAESTRO Jan. 2007 R. Wouters, 1915
  • 39. Image-Guided Radiation Therapy in HNSCC Impact of imaging modality on dose distribution CT-based target volume FDG PET-based target volume MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 40. IMRT in Head and Neck Tumors Left parotid Hypopharyngeal SCC PTVs T4-N0-M0 Dose: 25 x 1.8 Gy bid Spinal cord Right parotid MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 41. Watershed & Clustering segmentation 1.Raw images 2.Image denoising 3.Image deblurring 4.TAC distances c/s c/s c/s Bil. PSF XYZ D T XYZ XYZ T Image improvement 5.Watersheds D XYZ 9.Segmented images 8.Cluster Analysis 7.TAC distances 6.Wat.sh. mean TACs c/s c/s XYZ D T T T MAESTRO Jan. 2007
  • 42. Image-Guided Radiation Therapy in HNSCC The 4th dimension … FDG-PET 0 Gy 50 Gy MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Geets et al, 2003
  • 43. Bayesian terminology for diagnostic imaging studies Disease status “-” “+” Test “-” TN FN NPV = TN/TN+FN “+” FP TP PPV = TP/TP+FP Sensitivity = TP/TP+FN Specificity = TN/TN+FP Disease Disease “-” “+” “-” “+” “-” 48 2 NPV = 96% “-” 25 25 NPV = 50% Test “+” 20 30 PPV = 60% Test “+” 4 46 PPV = 92% Sensitivity = 94% Sensitivity = 65% MAESTRO Specificity = 70% Specificity = 86% Jan. 2007
  • 44. From microscopy to PET images… Mean minimal distance Mean angle (°) between two skew lines MR-CT: 0.21 0.06 mm 2.23 0.31 PET-CT: 0.23 0.11 mm 2.52 0.74 PET-MR: 0.28 0.07 mm 2.47 0.46 PET-AR: 0.18 0.04 mm 3.53 0.39 MAESTRO Jan. 2007 N. Christian, 2006
  • 45. Work in progress: other tracers… PET-FLT FLT ? FDG 0 Gy 20 Gy Before surgery MAESTRO Jan. 2007 Lee & et al, HaustermansGeets 2006
  • 46. Gradient Intensity Image Image saturation (window level) Raw image Grad. Int. image MAESTRO Boundaries do not move! Lee & Geets 2006 Jan. 2007

×