Outcome Measures of New Technologies in Uveal Melanoma: Review from the European Vision Institute Special Interest Focus Group Meeting

MR-based follow-up after brachytherapy and proton beam therapy in uveal melanoma

PURPOSE

MRI is increasingly used in the diagnosis and therapy planning of uveal melanoma (UM). In this prospective cohort study, we assessed the radiological characteristics, in terms of anatomical and functional imaging, of UM after ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy or proton beam therapy (PBT) and compared them to conventional ultrasound.

METHODS

Twenty-six UM patients were evaluated before and 3, 6 and 12 months after brachytherapy (n = 13) or PBT (n = 13). Tumour prominences were compared between ultrasound and MRI. On diffusion-weighted imaging, the apparent diffusion value (ADC), and on perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI), the time-intensity curves (TIC), relative peak intensity and outflow percentages were determined. Values were compared between treatments and with baseline.

RESULTS

Pre-treatment prominences were comparable between MRI and ultrasound (mean absolute difference 0.51 mm, p = 0.46), but larger differences were observed post-treatment (e.g. 3 months: 0.9 mm (p = 0.02)). Pre-treatment PWI metrics were comparable between treatment groups. After treatment, brachytherapy patients showed favourable changes on PWI (e.g. 67% outflow reduction at 3 months, p < 0.01). After PBT, significant perfusion changes were observed at a later timepoint (e.g. 38% outflow reduction at 6 months, p = 0.01). No consistent ADC changes were observed after either treatment, e.g. a 0.11 × 10^-3mm²/s increase 12 months after treatment (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

MR-based follow-up is valuable for PBT-treated patients as favourable perfusion changes, including a reduction in outflow, can be detected before a reduction in size is apparent on ultrasound. For brachytherapy, a follow-up MRI is of less value as already 3 months post-treatment a significant size reduction can be measured on ultrasound.

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based and Conventional Measurements for Proton Beam Therapy of Uveal Melanoma

OBJECTIVE

Conventionally, ocular proton therapy (PT) is planned using measurements obtained by an ophthalmologist using ultrasound, fundoscopy, biometry, and intraoperative assessments. Owing to the recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of uveal melanoma (UM), it is possible to acquire high-resolution 3-dimensional images of the eye, providing the opportunity to incorporate MRI in ocular PT planning. In this study, we described how these measurements can be obtained using MRI, compared the MRI-based measurements with conventional ophthalmic measurements, and identified potential pitfalls for both modalities.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SUBJECTS

Data from 23 consecutive patients with UM treated with PT were retrospectively evaluated.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of axial length, tumor height and basal diameter, and marker-tumor distances were compared with the conventional ophthalmic measurements, and discrepancies were evaluated in a multidisciplinary setting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tumor prominence and basal diameters on MRI and ultrasound, axial length on MRI and biometry, tumor-marker distances on MRI and measured intraoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean absolute differences of the tumor height and basal diameter measurements between ultrasound and MRI were 0.57 mm and 1.44 mm, respectively. Larger absolute differences in height and basal diameter were observed when the full tumor extent was not visible on ultrasound (0.92 mm and 1.67 mm, respectively) compared with when the full tumor extent was visible (0.44 mm and 1.15 mm, respectively). When the full tumor was not visible on ultrasound, MRI was considered more reliable. Tumor-marker distances measured using MRI and intraoperative techniques differed < 1 mm in 55% of the markers. For anteriorly located and mushroom-shaped tumors (25% of the markers), MRI provided more accurate measurements. In flat UM (15% of the markers), however, it was difficult to delineate the tumor on MRI. The mean absolute difference in axial length between optical biometry and MRI was 0.50 mm. The presence of the tumor was found to influence optical biometry in 15 of 22 patients; the remaining patients showed a better agreement (0.30 mm). Magnetic resonance imaging-based biometry was considered more reliable in patients with UM.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging allowed for the 3-dimensional assessment of the tumor and surrounding tissue. In specific patients, it provided a more reliable measurement of axial length, tumor dimensions, and marker-tumor distances and could contribute to a more accurate treatment planning. Nevertheless, a combined evaluation remains advised, especially for flat UM.

Inter-Observer Variability in MR-Based Target Volume Delineation of Uveal Melanoma

Purpose

Several efforts are being undertaken toward MRI-based treatment planning for ocular proton therapy for uveal melanoma (UM). The interobserver variability of the gross target volume (GTV) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the important parameters to design safety margins for a reliable treatment. Therefore, this study assessed the interobserver variation in GTV delineation of UM on MRI.

Methods and Materials

Six observers delineated the GTV in 10 different patients using the Big Brother contouring software. Patients were scanned at 3T MRI with a surface coil, and tumors were delineated separately on contrast enhanced 3DT1 (T1gd) and 3DT2-weighted scans with an isotropic acquisition resolution of 0.8 mm. Volume difference and overall local variation (median standard deviation of the distance between the delineated contours and the median contour) were analyzed for each GTV. Additionally, the local variation was analyzed for 4 interfaces: sclera, vitreous, retinal detachment, and tumor-choroid interface.

Results

The average GTV was significantly larger on T1gd (0.57cm³) compared with T2 (0.51cm³, P = .01). A not significant higher interobserver variation was found on T1gd (0.41 mm) compared with T2 (0.35 mm). The largest variations were found at the tumor-choroid interface due to peritumoral enhancement (T1gd, 0.62 mm; T2, 0.52 mm). As a result, a larger part of this tumor-choroid interface appeared to be included on T1gd-based GTVs compared with T2, explaining the smaller volumes on T2.

Conclusions

The interobserver variation of 0.4 mm on MRI are low with respect to the voxel size of 0.8 mm, enabling small treatment margins. We recommend delineation based on the T1gd-weighted scans, as choroidal tumor extensions might be missed.