Ten Haken R K, Thornton A F, Sandler H M, LaVigne M L, Quint D J, Fraass B A, Kessler M L, McShan D L
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-0010.
Radiother Oncol. 1992 Oct;25(2):121-33. doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(92)90018-p.
Quantitative 3-D volumetric comparisons were made of composite CT-MRI macroscopic and microscopic tumor and target volumes to their independently defined constituents. Volumetric comparisons were also made between volumes derived from coronal and axial MRI data sets, and between CT and MRI volumes redefined at a repeat session in comparison to their original definitions. The degree of 3-D dose coverage obtained from use of CT data only or MRI data only in terms of coverage of composite CT-MRI volumes was also analyzed. On average, MRI defined larger volumes as well as a greater share of composite CT-MRI volumes. On average, increases in block margin on the order of 0.5 cm would have ensured coverage of volumes derived from use of both imaging modalities had only MRI data been used. However, the degree of inter-observer variation in volume definition is on the order of the magnitude of differences in volume definition seen between the modalities, and the question of which imaging modality best describes tumor volumes remains unanswered until detailed histologic studies are performed. Given that tumor volumes independently apparent on CT and MRI have equal validity, composite CT-MRI input should be considered for planning to ensure precise dose coverage for conformal treatments.
对CT-MRI复合宏观和微观肿瘤及靶区体积与其各自独立定义的组成部分进行了定量三维体积比较。还对冠状面和轴位MRI数据集得出的体积之间,以及在重复检查时重新定义的CT和MRI体积与其原始定义之间进行了体积比较。还分析了仅使用CT数据或仅使用MRI数据在覆盖CT-MRI复合体积方面获得的三维剂量覆盖程度。平均而言,MRI定义的体积更大,且在CT-MRI复合体积中所占比例更大。平均而言,如果仅使用MRI数据,将边缘块增加约0.5 cm的幅度可确保覆盖两种成像方式得出的体积。然而,观察者间体积定义的差异程度与两种成像方式之间体积定义的差异幅度相当,在进行详细的组织学研究之前,哪种成像方式最能描述肿瘤体积的问题仍未得到解答。鉴于CT和MRI上独立显示的肿瘤体积具有同等的有效性,在治疗计划时应考虑使用CT-MRI复合输入,以确保适形治疗的精确剂量覆盖。