↓ Skip to main content

Geographic miss of lung tumours due to respiratory motion: a comparison of 3D vs 4D PET/CT defined target volumes

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Geographic miss of lung tumours due to respiratory motion: a comparison of 3D vs 4D PET/CT defined target volumes
Published in
Radiation Oncology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13014-014-0291-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Callahan, Tomas Kron, Shankar Siva, Nathalie Simoens, Amanda Edgar, Sarah Everitt, Michal E Schneider, Rodney J Hicks

Abstract

BackgroundPET/CT scans acquired in the radiotherapy treatment position are typically performed without compensating for respiratory motion. The purpose of this study was to investigate geographic miss of lung tumours due to respiratory motion for target volumes defined on a standard 3D-PET/CT.Methods29 patients staged for pulmonary malignancy who completed both a 3D-PET/CT and 4D-PET/CT were included. A 3D-Gross Tumour Volume (GTV) was defined on the standard whole body PET/CT scan. Subsequently a 4D-GTV was defined on a 4D-PET/CT MIP. A 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm symmetrical and 15x10mm asymmetrical Planning Target Volume (PTV) was created by expanding the 3D-GTV and 4D-GTV¿s. A 3D conformal plan was generated and calculated to cover the 3D-PTV. The 3D plan was transferred to the 4D-PTV and analysed for geographic miss. Three types of miss were measured. Type 1: any part of the 4D-GTV outside the 3D-PTV. Type 2: any part of the 4D-PTV outside the 3D-PTV. Type 3: any part of the 4D-PTV receiving less than 95% of the prescribed dose. The lesion motion was measured to look at the association between lesion motion and geographic miss.ResultsWhen a standard 15 mm or asymmetrical PTV margin was used there were 1/29 (3%) Type 1 misses. This increased 7/29 (24%) for the 10 mm margin and 23/29 (79%) for a 5 mm margin. All patients for all margins had a Type 2 geographic miss. There was a Type 3 miss in 25 out of 29 cases in the 5, 10, and 15 mm PTV margin groups. The asymmetrical margin had one additional Type 3 miss. Pearson analysis showed a correlation (p < 0.01) between lesion motion and the severity of the different types of geographic miss.ConclusionWithout any form of motion suppression, the current standard of a 3D- PET/CT and 15 mm PTV margin employed for lung lesions has an increasing risk of significant geographic miss when tumour motion increases. Use of smaller asymmetric margins in the cranio-caudal direction does not comprise tumour coverage. Reducing PTV margins for volumes defined on 3D-PET/CT will greatly increase the chance and severity of a geometric miss due to respiratory motion. 4D-imaging reduces the risk of geographic miss across the population of tumour sizes and magnitude of motion investigated in the study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Other 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 39%
Physics and Astronomy 8 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Engineering 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,571,028
of 12,437,730 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#200
of 1,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,945
of 251,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#21
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,437,730 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,302 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 251,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.