R Frood, R Prestwich, C Tsoumpas, P Murray, K Franks, A Scarsbrook
Journal: Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 2019;30(4):225-232
PMID: 29397271
AIMS
A systematic review of the literature evaluating the clinical use of respiratory-gated (four-dimensional; 4D) fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) compared with non-gated (three-dimensional; 3D) PET/CT for radiotherapy planning in lung cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, SCOPUS and clinicaltrials.gov databases was undertaken for articles comparing 3D and 4D PET/CT tumour volume or 4D PET/CT for radiotherapy planning. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies compared tumour volumes at 3D and 4D PET/CT; eight reported significantly smaller volumes (6.9-44.5%), three reported significantly larger volumes at 4D PET/CT (16-50%), one reported no significant difference and one reported mixed findings. Six studies, including two that reported differences in tumour volumes, compared target volumes or studied geographic misses. 4D PET/CT target volumes were significantly larger (19-40%) when compared with 3D PET/CT in all but one study, where they were smaller (3.8%). One study reported no significance in 4D PET/CT target volumes when compared with 4D CT, whereas another study reported significantly larger volumes (38.7%).
CONCLUSION
The use of 4D PET/CT leads to differences in target volume delineation compared with 3D PET/CT. These differences vary depending upon technique and the clinical impact currently remains uncertain. Correlation of pretreatment target volumes generated at 3D and 4D PET/CT with postsurgical histology would be ideal but technically challenging. Evaluation of patient outcomes based on 3D versus 4D PET/CT derived treatment volumes warrants further investigation.
Copyright © 2018 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Full Text Sources:
Medical:
Other Literature Sources:
© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.