Comparison of CT and PET-CT based planning of radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma
2008

Comparing CT and PET-CT for Radiation Therapy Planning in Pancreatic Cancer

Sample size: 14 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Topkan Erkan, Yavuz Ali A, Aydin Mehmet, Onal Cem, Yapar Fuat, Yavuz Melek N

Primary Institution: Baskent University Medical Faculty, Adana Medical and Research Center

Hypothesis

Using PET-CT data rather than CT data alone would change radiation therapy fields and possibly result in fewer geographic misses for pancreatic cancer.

Conclusion

PET-CT based planning may improve the delineation of gross tumor volume and reduce the likelihood of geographic misses in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Supporting Evidence

  • Changes in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation were necessary in 5 patients based on PET-CT information.
  • The average increase in GTV was 29.7% due to additional lymph node metastases and tumor extension.
  • PET-CT based delineation resulted in a significant increase in both the mean GTVs and the mean planning target volumes (PTVs).
  • No clinically significant differences in doses to critical organs were observed between the two planning methods.

Takeaway

Doctors used two types of scans to plan radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer, and the better scan helped them see more of the tumor, which could help treat it better.

Methodology

Fourteen patients with unresectable LAPC underwent both CT and PET imaging, and treatment plans were created using both imaging modalities to analyze differences in treatment plans and radiation doses.

Potential Biases

Potential interobserver variability in target volume delineation was noted.

Limitations

The study had a small sample size and was limited to patients with unresectable LAPC.

Participant Demographics

Patients were aged between 18 and 70 years, with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.009

Confidence Interval

95% CI: 18.2–40.6

Statistical Significance

p = 0.009

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1756-9966-27-41

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication