Measuring the gravitational field in General Relativity: From deviation equations and the gravitational compass to relativistic clock gradiometry

How does one measure the gravitational field? We give explicit answers to this fundamental question and show how all components of the curvature tensor, which represents the gravitational field in Einstein's theory of General Relativity, can be obtained by means of two different methods. The first method relies on the measuring the accelerations of a suitably prepared set of test bodies relative to the observer. The second methods utilizes a set of suitably prepared clocks. The methods discussed here form the basis of relativistic (clock) gradiometry and are of direct operational relevance for applications in geodesy.Comment: To appear in "Relativistic Geodesy: Foundations and Application", D. Puetzfeld et. al. (eds.), Fundamental Theories of Physics, Springer 2018, 52 pages, in print. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1804.11106, arXiv:1511.08465, arXiv:1805.1067

Pathology-based validation of FDG PET segmentation tools for volume assessment of lymph node metastases from head and neck cancer

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: FDG PET is increasingly incorporated into radiation treatment planning of head and neck cancer. However, there are only limited data on the accuracy of radiotherapy target volume delineation by FDG PET. The purpose of this study was to validate FDG PET segmentation tools for volume assessment of lymph node metastases from head and neck cancer against the pathological method as the standard. METHODS: Twelve patients with head and neck cancer and 28 metastatic lymph nodes eligible for therapeutic neck dissection underwent preoperative FDG PET/CT. The metastatic lymph nodes were delineated on CT (NodeCT) and ten PET segmentation tools were used to assess FDG PET-based nodal volumes: interpreting FDG PET visually (PETVIS), applying an isocontour at a standardized uptake value (SUV) of 2.5 (PETSUV), two segmentation tools with a fixed threshold of 40% and 50%, and two adaptive threshold based methods. The latter four tools were applied with the primary tumour as reference and also with the lymph node itself as reference. Nodal volumes were compared with the true volume as determined by pathological examination. RESULTS: Both NodeCT and PETVIS showed good correlations with the pathological volume. PET segmentation tools using the metastatic node as reference all performed well but not better than PETVIS. The tools using the primary tumour as reference correlated poorly with pathology. PETSUV was unsatisfactory in 35% of the patients due to merging of the contours of adjacent nodes. CONCLUSION: FDG PET accurately estimates metastatic lymph node volume, but beyond the detection of lymph node metastases (staging), it has no added value over CT alone for the delineation of routine radiotherapy target volumes. If FDG PET is used in radiotherapy planning, treatment adaptation or response assessment, we recommend an automated segmentation method for purposes of reproducibility and interinstitutional comparison