Dataset Information

An Automated Multiparametric MRI Quantitative Imaging Prostate Habitat Risk Scoring System for Defining External Beam Radiation Therapy Boost Volumes.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To develop a prostate tumor habitat risk scoring (HRS) system based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) referenced to prostatectomy Gleason score (GS) for automatic delineation of gross tumor volumes. A workflow for integration of HRS into radiation therapy boost volume dose escalation was developed in the framework of a phase 2 randomized clinical trial (BLaStM). METHODS AND MATERIALS:An automated quantitative mpMRI-based 10-point pixel-by-pixel method was optimized to prostatectomy GSs and volumes using referenced dynamic contrast-enhanced and apparent diffusion coefficient sequences. The HRS contours were migrated to the planning computed tomography scan for boost volume generation. RESULTS:There were 51 regions of interest in 12 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (26 with GS ?7 and 25 with GS 6). The resultant heat maps showed inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity. The HRS6 level was significantly associated with radical prostatectomy regions of interest (slope 1.09, r = 0.767; P < .0001). For predicting the likelihood of cancer, GS ?7 and GS ?8 HRS6 area under the curve was 0.718, 0.802, and 0.897, respectively. HRS was superior to the Prostate Imaging, Reporting and Diagnosis System 4/5 classification, wherein the area under the curve was 0.62, 0.64, and 0.617, respectively (difference with HR6, P < .0001). HRS maps were created for the first 37 assessable patients on the BLaStM trial. There were an average of 1.38 habitat boost volumes per patient at a total boost volume average of 3.6 cm3. CONCLUSIONS:An automated quantitative mpMRI-based method was developed to objectively guide dose escalation to high-risk habitat volumes based on prostatectomy GS.

SUBMITTER: Stoyanova R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6245650 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Automated Multiparametric MRI Quantitative Imaging Prostate Habitat Risk Scoring System for Defining External Beam Radiation Therapy Boost Volumes.

Stoyanova Radka R Chinea Felix F Kwon Deukwoo D Reis Isildinha M IM Tschudi Yohann Y Parra Nestor A NA Breto Adrian L AL Padgett Kyle R KR Dal Pra Alan A Abramowitz Matthew C MC Kryvenko Oleksandr N ON Punnen Sanoj S Pollack Alan A

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20180613 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To develop a prostate tumor habitat risk scoring (HRS) system based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) referenced to prostatectomy Gleason score (GS) for automatic delineation of gross tumor volumes. A workflow for integration of HRS into radiation therapy boost volume dose escalation was developed in the framework of a phase 2 randomized clinical trial (BLaStM).<h4>Methods and materials</h4>An automated quantitative mpMRI-based 10-point pixel-by-pixel method w ...[more]

PMID: 29908220

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-radiotherapy locally recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients are candidates for focal salvage treatment. Multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) is attractive for tumor localization. However, radiotherapy-induced tissue changes complicate image interpretation. To develop focal salvage strategies, accurate tumor localization and distinction from benign tissue is necessary.PurposeTo quantitatively characterize radio-recurrent tumor and benign radiation-induced changes using mp-MRI, and investigate which sequences optimize the distinction between tumor and benign surroundings.Study typeProspective case-control.SubjectsThirty-three patients with biochemical failure after external-beam radiotherapy (cases), 35 patients without post-radiotherapy recurrent disease (controls), and 13 patients with primary PCa (untreated).Field strength/sequences3T; quantitative mp-MRI: T2 -mapping, ADC, and Ktrans and kep maps.AssessmentQuantitative image-analysis of prostatic regions, within and between cases, controls, and untreated patients.Statistical testsWithin-groups: nonparametric Friedman analysis of variance with post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests; between-groups: Mann-Whitney tests. All with Bonferroni corrections. Generalized linear mixed modeling to ascertain the contribution of each map and location to tumor likelihood.ResultsBenign imaging values were comparable between cases and controls (P = 0.15 for ADC in the central gland up to 0.91 for kep in the peripheral zone), both with similarly high peri-urethral Ktrans and kep values (min-1 ) (median [range]: Ktrans = 0.22 [0.14-0.43] and 0.22 [0.14-0.36], P = 0.60, kep = 0.43 [0.24-0.57] and 0.48 [0.32-0.67], P = 0.05). After radiotherapy, benign central gland values were significantly decreased for all maps (P ≤ 0.001) as well as T2 , Ktrans , and kep of benign peripheral zone (all with P ≤ 0.002). All imaging maps distinguished recurrent tumor from benign peripheral zone, but only ADC, Ktrans , and kep were able to distinguish it from benign central gland. Recurrent tumor and peri-urethral Ktrans values were not significantly different (P = 0.81), but kep values were (P < 0.001). Combining all quantitative maps and voxel location resulted in an optimal distinction between tumor and benign voxels.Data conclusionMp-MRI can distinguish recurrent tumor from benign tissue.Level of evidence2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:269-278.

Project description:Coronary artery disease (CAD), the most common manifestation of cardiovascular disease, remains the most common cause of mortality in the United States. Risk assessment is key for primary prevention of coronary events and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring using computed tomography (CT) is one such non-invasive tool. Despite the proven clinical value of CAC, the current clinical practice implementation for CAC has limitations such as the lack of insurance coverage for the test, need for capital-intensive CT machines, specialized imaging protocols, and accredited 3D imaging labs for analysis (including personnel and software). Perhaps the greatest gap is the millions of patients who undergo routine chest CT exams and demonstrate coronary artery calcification, but their presence is not often reported or quantitation is not feasible. We present two deep learning models that automate CAC scoring demonstrating advantages in automated scoring for both dedicated gated coronary CT exams and routine non-gated chest CTs performed for other reasons to allow opportunistic screening. First, we trained a gated coronary CT model for CAC scoring that showed near perfect agreement (mean difference in scores = -2.86; Cohen's Kappa = 0.89, P < 0.0001) with current conventional manual scoring on a retrospective dataset of 79 patients and was found to perform the task faster (average time for automated CAC scoring using a graphics processing unit (GPU) was 3.5 ± 2.1 s vs. 261 s for manual scoring) in a prospective trial of 55 patients with little difference in scores compared to three technologists (mean difference in scores = 3.24, 5.12, and 5.48, respectively). Then using CAC scores from paired gated coronary CT as a reference standard, we trained a deep learning model on our internal data and a cohort from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study (total training n = 341, Stanford test n = 42, MESA test n = 46) to perform CAC scoring on routine non-gated chest CT exams with validation on external datasets (total n = 303) obtained from four geographically disparate health systems. On identifying patients with any CAC (i.e., CAC ≥ 1), sensitivity and PPV was high across all datasets (ranges: 80-100% and 87-100%, respectively). For CAC ≥ 100 on routine non-gated chest CTs, which is the latest recommended threshold to initiate statin therapy, our model showed sensitivities of 71-94% and positive predictive values in the range of 88-100% across all the sites. Adoption of this model could allow more patients to be screened with CAC scoring, potentially allowing opportunistic early preventive interventions.

Project description:Importance:The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective:To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures:Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results:Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Project description:PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.ConclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Project description:Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI (p = 0.007), HI (p < 0.001), and TCP (p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted.

Dataset Information

An Automated Multiparametric MRI Quantitative Imaging Prostate Habitat Risk Scoring System for Defining External Beam Radiation Therapy Boost Volumes.

Publications

An Automated Multiparametric MRI Quantitative Imaging Prostate Habitat Risk Scoring System for Defining External Beam Radiation Therapy Boost Volumes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets