Tumor volume definitions in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma - Comparing PET/MRI and histopathology.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 36690303.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109484.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
In cancer treatment precise definition of the tumor volume is essential, but despite development in imaging modalities, this remains a challenge. Here, pathological tumor volumes from the surgical specimens were obtained and compared to tumor volumes defined from modern PET/MRI hybrid imaging. The purpose is to evaluate mismatch between the volumes defined from imaging and pathology was estimated and potential clinical impact. Twenty-five patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were scanned on an integrated PET/MRI system prior to surgery. Three gross tumor volumes (GTVs) from the primary tumor site were delineated defined from MRI (GTV<sub>MRI</sub>), PET (GTV<sub>PET</sub>) and one by utilizing both anatomical images and clinical information (GTV<sub>ONCO</sub>). Twenty-five primary tumor specimens were extracted en bloc, scanned with PET/MRI and co-registered to the patient images. Each specimen was sectioned in blocks, sliced and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. All slices were digitalized and tumor delineated by a head and neck pathologist. The pathological tumor areas in all slices were interpolated yielding a pathological 3D tumor volume (GTV<sub>PATO</sub>). GTV<sub>PATO</sub>was compared with the imaging GTV's and potential mismatch was estimated. Thirteen patients were included. The mean volume of GTV<sub>ONCO</sub>was larger than the GTV's defined from PET or MRI. The mean mismatch of the GTV<sub>PATO</sub>compared to the GTV<sub>PET</sub>, GTV<sub>MRI</sub>and GTV<sub>ONCO</sub>was 31.9 %, 54.5 % and 27.9 % respectively, and the entire GTV<sub>PATO</sub> was only fully encompassed in GTV<sub>ONCO</sub> in 1 of 13 patients. However, after the addition of a clinical 5 mm margin the GTV<sub>PATO</sub> was fully encompassed in GTV<sub>ONCO</sub> in 11 out of 13 patients. Despite modern hybrid imaging modalities, a mismatch between imaging and pathological defined tumor volumes was observed in all patients.A 5 mm clinical margin was sufficient to ensure inclusion of the entire pathological volume in 11 out of 13 patients.
Medical subject headings
- Tomography, X-Ray Computed
- Head and Neck Neoplasms