1
|
Bisgaard ALH, Keesman R, van Lier ALHMW, Coolens C, van Houdt PJ, Tree A, Wetscherek A, Romesser PB, Tyagi N, Lo Russo M, Habrich J, Vesprini D, Lau AZ, Mook S, Chung P, Kerkmeijer LGW, Gouw ZAR, Lorenzen EL, van der Heide UA, Schytte T, Brink C, Mahmood F. Recommendations for improved reproducibility of ADC derivation on behalf of the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group. Radiother Oncol 2023; 186:109803. [PMID: 37437609 PMCID: PMC11197850 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Revised: 06/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a potential imaging biomarker for radiotherapy response, needs to be reproducible before translation into clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the multi-centre delineation- and calculation-related ADC variation and give recommendations to minimize it. MATERIALS AND METHODS Nine centres received identical diffusion-weighted and anatomical magnetic resonance images of different cancerous tumours (adrenal gland, pelvic oligo metastasis, pancreas, and prostate). All centres delineated the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and viable tumour volume (VTV), and calculated ADCs using both their local calculation methods and each of the following calculation conditions: b-values 0-500 vs. 150-500 s/mm2, region-of-interest (ROI)-based vs. voxel-based calculation, and mean vs. median. ADC variation was assessed using the mean coefficient of variation across delineations (CVD) and calculation methods (CVC). Absolute ADC differences between calculation conditions were evaluated using Friedman's test. Recommendations for ADC calculation were formulated based on observations and discussions within the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group. RESULTS The median (range) CVD and CVC were 0.06 (0.02-0.32) and 0.17 (0.08-0.26), respectively. The ADC estimates differed 18% between b-value sets and 4% between ROI/voxel-based calculation (p-values < 0.01). No significant difference was observed between mean and median (p = 0.64). Aligning calculation conditions between centres reduced CVC to 0.04 (0.01-0.16). CVD was comparable between ROI types. CONCLUSION Overall, calculation methods had a larger impact on ADC reproducibility compared to delineation. Based on the results, significant sources of variation were identified, which should be considered when initiating new studies, in particular multi-centre investigations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne L H Bisgaard
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19.3, 5000 Odense Denmark.
| | - Rick Keesman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Astrid L H M W van Lier
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX,Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Catherine Coolens
- Department of Medical Physics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 610 University Avenue, M5G 2M9 Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Petra J van Houdt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Postbus 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Alison Tree
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT London, UK.
| | - Andreas Wetscherek
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, SM2 5NG London, UK.
| | - Paul B Romesser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, Box 22, NY 10065, New York, USA.
| | - Neelam Tyagi
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 545 E. 73rd street, NY 10021, New York, USA.
| | - Monica Lo Russo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
| | - Jonas Habrich
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, M4N 3M5 Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Angus Z Lau
- Physical Sciences Platform, Sunnybrook Research Institute. Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, M4N 3M5 Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Stella Mook
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX,Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Peter Chung
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, M5G 2M9 Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Linda G W Kerkmeijer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Zeno A R Gouw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Postbus 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Ebbe L Lorenzen
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
| | - Uulke A van der Heide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Postbus 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Tine Schytte
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19.3, 5000 Odense Denmark; Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
| | - Carsten Brink
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19.3, 5000 Odense Denmark.
| | - Faisal Mahmood
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19.3, 5000 Odense Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abouelkheir RT, Aboshamia YI, Taman SE. Diagnostic utility of three Tesla diffusion tensor imaging in prostate cancer: correlation with Gleason score values. THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE 2022. [DOI: 10.1186/s43055-022-00892-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness is a prerequisite to provide specific management options. The Gleason score (GS) obtained from prostatic biopsy or surgery is crucial for the evaluation of PCa aggressiveness and personalized treatment planning. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides valuable information about microstructural properties of prostatic tissue. The most common prostate DTI measures are the fractional anisotropy (FA) and median diffusivity (MD) can give more information regarding the biophysical characteristics of prostate tissue. We aimed to explore the correlation of these DTI parameters with GS levels in PCa patients that can affect the management protocol of PCa.
Results
The computed area under curve (AUC) of the FA values used to differentiate cancer patients from control group was (0.90) with cutoff point to differentiate both groups were ≥ 0.245. The computed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were (84%, 80%, 95.5%, and 50%), respectively, with accuracy 83.3%. FA showed high positive correlation with Gleason score (p value < 0.001). Median diffusivity (MD) showed negative correlation with GS with statistically significant results (p value = 0.013). PCa fiber bundles were dense, orderly arranged, without interruption in the low grade, and slightly disorganized in the intermediate group. However, in the high-grade group, the fiber bundles were interrupted, irregularly arranged, and absent at the site of cancerous foci.
Conclusions
Combined quantitative parameter values (FA and MD values) and parametric diagrams (FA and DTI maps) can be utilized to evaluate prostate cancer aggressiveness and prognosis, helping in the improvement of the management protocol of PCa patients.
Collapse
|