International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 70, Issue 4 , Pages 1219-1228, 15 March 2008

The Influence of Changes in Tumor Hypoxia on Dose-Painting Treatment Plans Based on 18F-FMISO Positron Emission Tomography

  • Zhixiong Lin, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Shantou University Medical College–Cancer Hospital, Shantou, China
  • ,
  • James Mechalakos, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
  • ,
  • Sadek Nehmeh, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
    • Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
  • ,
  • Heiko Schoder, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
  • ,
  • Nancy Lee, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
  • ,
  • John Humm, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
    • Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
  • ,
  • C. Clifton Ling, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
    • Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: C. Clifton Ling, Ph.D., Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10021. Tel: (212) 639-8301; Fax: (212) 717-3010

Received 17 August 2007; received in revised form 20 September 2007; accepted 21 September 2007.

Purpose

To evaluate how changes in tumor hypoxia, according to serial fluorine-18-labeled fluoro-misonidazole (18F-FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, affect the efficacy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose painting.

Methods and Materials

Seven patients with head and neck cancers were imaged twice with FMISO PET, separated by 3 days, before radiotherapy. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were designed, on the basis of the first FMISO scan, to deliver a boost dose of 14 Gy to the hypoxic volume, in addition to the 70-Gy prescription dose. The same plans were then applied to hypoxic volumes from the second FMISO scan, and the efficacy of dose painting evaluated by assessing coverage of the hypoxic volumes using Dmax, Dmin, Dmean, D95, and equivalent uniform dose (EUD).

Results

Similar hypoxic volumes were observed in the serial scans for 3 patients but dissimilar ones for the other 4. There was reduced coverage of hypoxic volumes of the second FMISO scan relative to that of the first scan (e.g., the average EUD decreased from 87 Gy to 80 Gy). The decrease was dependent on the similarity of the hypoxic volumes of the two scans (e.g., the average EUD decrease was approximately 4 Gy for patients with similar hypoxic volumes and approximately 12 Gy for patients with dissimilar ones).

Conclusions

The changes in spatial distribution of tumor hypoxia, as detected in serial FMISO PET imaging, compromised the coverage of hypoxic tumor volumes achievable by dose-painting IMRT. However, dose painting always increased the EUD of the hypoxic volumes.

Tumor hypoxia, Dose painting, 18F-FMISO PET

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Z.L. and J.M. contributed equally to this article.

 Supported in part by PO1 CA115675 from the National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health.

 Conflict of interest: none.

PII: S0360-3016(07)04368-4

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.09.050

International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 70, Issue 4 , Pages 1219-1228, 15 March 2008