| Title |
A comparative study of target volumes based on 18F-FDG PET-CT and ten phases of 4DCT for primary thoracic squamous esophageal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s95322 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yanluan Guo, Jianbin Li, Peng Zhang, Yingjie Zhang |
| Abstract |
To investigate the correlations in target volumes based on (18)F-FDG PET/CT and four-dimensional CT (4DCT) to detect the feasibility of implementing PET in determining gross target volumes (GTV) for tumor motion for primary thoracic esophageal cancer (EC). Thirty-three patients with EC sequentially underwent contrast-enhanced 3DCT, 4DCT, and (18)F-FDG PET-CT thoracic simulation. The internal gross target volume (IGTV)10 was obtained by combining the GTV from ten phases of 4DCT. The GTVs based on PET/CT images were defined by setting of different standardized uptake value thresholds and visual contouring. The difference in volume ratio, conformity index (CI), and degree of inclusion (DI) between IGTV10 and GTVPET was compared. The images from 20 patients were suitable for further analysis. The optimal volume ratio of 0.95±0.32, 1.06±0.50, 1.07±0.49 was at standardized uptake value (SUV)2.5, SUV20%, or manual contouring. The mean CIs were from 0.33 to 0.54. The best CIs were at SUV2.0 (0.51±0.11), SUV2.5 (0.53±0.13), SUV20% (0.53±0.12), and manual contouring (0.54±0.14). The mean DIs of GTVPET in IGTV10 were from 0.60 to 0.90, and the mean DIs of IGTV10 in GTVPET ranged from 0.35 to 0.78. A negative correlation was found between the mean CI and different SUV (P=0.000). None of the PET-based contours had both close spatial and volumetric approximation to the 4DCT IGTV10. Further evaluation and optimization of PET as a tool for target identification are required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 50% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 75% |
| Engineering | 1 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#362,538
of 421,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#58
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.