C. Rasch

The potential impact of CT-MRI matching on tumor volume delineation in advanced head and neck cancer

PURPOSE To study the potential impact of the combined use of CT and MRI scans on the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) estimation and interobserver variation. METHODS AND MATERIALS Four observers outlined the GTV in six patients with advanced head and neck cancer on CT, axial MRI, and coronal or sagittal MRI. The MRI scans were subsequently matched to the CT scan. The interobserver and interscan set variation were assessed in three dimensions. RESULTS The mean CT derived volume was a factor of 1.3 larger than the mean axial MRI volume. The range in volumes was larger for the CT than for the axial MRI volumes in five of the six cases. The ratio of the scan set common (i.e., the volume common to all GTVs) and the scan set encompassing volume (i.e., the smallest volume encompassing all GTVs) was closer to one in MRI (0.3-0.6) than in CT (0.1-0.5). The rest volumes (i.e., the volume defined by one observer as GTV in one data set but not in the other data set) were never zero for CT vs. MRI nor for MRI vs. CT. In two cases the craniocaudal border was poorly recognized on the axial MRI but could be delineated with a good agreement between the observers in the coronal/sagittal MRI. CONCLUSIONS MRI-derived GTVs are smaller and have less interobserver variation than CT-derived GTVs. CT and MRI are complementary in delineating the GTV. A coronal or sagittal MRI adds to a better GTV definition in the craniocaudal direction.

Deformable Image Registration for Adaptive Radiation Therapy of Head and Neck Cancer: Accuracy and Precision in the Presence of Tumor Changes

PURPOSE To compare deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy and precision for normal and tumor tissues in head and neck cancer patients during the course of radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirteen patients with oropharyngeal tumors, who underwent submucosal implantation of small gold markers (average 6, range 4-10) around the tumor and were treated with RT were retrospectively selected. Two observers identified 15 anatomical features (landmarks) representative of normal tissues in the planning computed tomography (pCT) scan and in weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs). Gold markers were digitally removed after semiautomatic identification in pCTs and CBCTs. Subsequently, landmarks and gold markers on pCT were propagated to CBCTs, using a b-spline-based DIR and, for comparison, rigid registration (RR). To account for observer variability, the pair-wise difference analysis of variance method was applied. DIR accuracy (systematic error) and precision (random error) for landmarks and gold markers were quantified. Time trend of the precisions for RR and DIR over the weekly CBCTs were evaluated. RESULTS DIR accuracies were submillimeter and similar for normal and tumor tissue. DIR precision (1 SD) on the other hand was significantly different (P<.01), with 2.2 mm vector length in normal tissue versus 3.3 mm in tumor tissue. No significant time trend in DIR precision was found for normal tissue, whereas in tumor, DIR precision was significantly (P<.009) degraded during the course of treatment by 0.21 mm/week. CONCLUSIONS DIR for tumor registration proved to be less precise than that for normal tissues due to limited contrast and complex non-elastic tumor response. Caution should therefore be exercised when applying DIR for tumor changes in adaptive procedures.

Validation of deformable registration in head and neck cancer using analysis of variance.

PURPOSE Deformable image registration (DIR) is often validated based on a distance-to-agreement (DTA) criterion of automatically propagated anatomical landmarks that were manually identified. Due to human observer variability, however, the performance of the registration method is diluted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an analysis of variance (ANOVA) based validation to account for such observer variation. METHODS Weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs) of ten head and neck cancer patients undergoing five weeks of radiotherapy were used. An expert identified 23 anatomical features (landmarks) on the planning CT. The landmarks were automatically propagated to the CBCT using multiregion-of-interest (mROI) registration. Additionally, two human observers independently localized these landmarks on the CBCTs. Subsequently, ANOVA was used to compute the variance of each observer on the pairwise distance (PWD). RESULTS ANOVA based analysis demonstrated that a classical DTA approach underestimated the precision for the mROI due to human observer variation by about 25%. The systematic error (accuracy) of mROI ranged from 0.13 to 0.17 mm; the variability (1 SD) (precision) ranged from 1.3 to 1.5 mm demonstrating that its performance is dominated by the precision. CONCLUSIONS The PWD-ANOVA method accounts for human observer variation allowing a better estimation of the of DIR errors.

Prognostic significance of radiologically determined neck node volume in head and neck cancer: A systematic review

This systematic review addresses the prognostic significance of neck node volume in head and neck cancer. Primary tumor volume evolved as an independent significant factor for survival in head and neck cancer patients. Besides primary tumor volume, multiple prognostic features related to the regional lymph nodes were studied in literature. In literature, some authors showed the significance of total tumor volume/nodal volume for survival and loco-regional control. Articles reporting prognosis and survival in nodal tumor volumes were collected by systematically reviewing publications listed in the Pubmed and Embase databases. Publications were included when they at least reported on total tumor volume (TTV) or nodal volume and survival. In this systematic review we studied 21 articles. For measurement of nodal volume different formulas were used. Until now, theres no clear statistical evidence for the use of either TTV or nodal volume versus primary tumor volume to predict the individual loco-regional control or survival after treatment. There is wide variety of tumor measuring systems in the literature. The cut-off value for local tumor response also shows large variation. Firstly consensus should be accomplished on standardization of volume measurements, preferably automatic, and secondly large study groups are needed with identical treatment modalities to further unravel the role of neck node volume as separate staging tool.

Evaluation of Tumor Shape Variability in Head-and-Neck Cancer Patients Over the Course of Radiation Therapy Using Implanted Gold Markers

PURPOSE This study quantifies tumor shape variability in head-and-neck cancer patients during radiation therapy using implanted markers. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven patients with oropharyngeal tumors treated with (chemo)radiation were included. Helical gold markers (0.35 × 2 mm, 3-10/patient, average 6) were implanted around the tumor. Markers were identified on planning computed tomography (CT) and daily cone beam CT (CBCT). After bony anatomy registration, the daily vector length on CBCT in reference to the planning CT and daily marker movement perpendicular to the gross tumor volume (GTV) surface at planning CT (d(normal)) of each marker were analyzed. Time trends were assessed with linear regression of the (markers). In 2 patients, 2 markers were implanted in normal tissue to evaluate migration by measuring intermarker distances. RESULTS Marker implantation was feasible without complications. Three-dimensional vectors (4827 measurements, mean 0.23 cm, interquartile ratio 0.24 cm) were highest in base of tongue sublocalization (P<.001) and bulky tumors (vectors exceeded 0.5 cm in 5.7% [0-20 mL], 12.0% [21-40 mL], and 21.7% [≥ 41 mL], respectively [P<.001] of measurements). The measured inward time trend in 11/27 patients correlated with the visual observed marker pattern. In patients with an outward trend (5/27) or no trend (11/27), visual observation showed predominantly an inhomogeneous pattern. Remarkably, in 6 patients, outward marker movement was observed in the posterior pharyngeal wall. The difference in distance between normal tissue markers (1 SD) was 0.05-0.06 cm without time trend, indicating that implanted markers did not migrate. CONCLUSIONS During head-and-neck radiation therapy, normal tissue markers remained stable. Changes in position of tumor markers depended on sublocalization and tumor volume. Large differences in marker patterns between patients as well as within patients were observed. Based on our study, the cranial and caudal border in the posterior pharyngeal wall are at highest risk to be covered insufficiently. Furthermore, implanted markers could help identify patients with an actual shrinkage of the GTV who might benefit from mid-radiation therapy redelineation to reduce toxicity.

Meta-analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.