Analysis of the variability among radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical tumor bed based on 4D-CT

Target volumes comparison between postoperative simulation magnetic resonance imaging and preoperative diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging for prone breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the differences in target volumes between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRIpre) and postoperative MRI (MRIpost) for breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) using deformable image registration (DIR).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seventeen eligible patients who underwent whole-breast irradiation in the prone position after BCS were enrolled. On MRIpre, the gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated as GTVpre, which was then expanded by 10 mm to represent the preoperative lumpectomy cavity (LC), denoted as LCpre. The LC was expanded to the clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) on the MRIpre and MRIpost, denoted as CTVpre, CTVpost, PTVpre, and PTVpost, respectively. The MIM software system was used to register the MRIpre and MRIpost using DIR. Differences were evaluated regarding target volume, distance between the centers of mass (dCOM), conformity index (CI), and degree of inclusion (DI). The relationship between CILC /CIPTV and the clinical factors was also assessed.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in LC and PTV volumes between MRIpre and MRIpost (p < 0.0001). LCpre was 0.85 cm3 larger than LCpost, while PTVpre was 29.38 cm3 smaller than PTVpost. The dCOM between LCpre and LCpost was 1.371 cm, while that between PTVpre and PTVpost reduced to 1.348 cm. There were statistically significant increases in CI and DI for LCpost-LCpre and PTVpost-PTVpre (CI = 0.221, 0.470; DI = 0.472, 0.635). No obvious linear correlations (p > 0.05) were found between CI and GTV, primary tumor volume-to-breast volume ratio, distance from the primary tumor to the nipple and chest wall, and body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite using DIR technology, the spatial correspondence of target volumes between MRIpre and MRIpost was suboptimal. Therefore, relying solely on preoperative diagnostic MRI with DIR for postoperative LC delineation is not recommended.

The King is in the altogether: Radiation therapy after oncoplastic breast surgery

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy, and the majority of the patients are diagnosed at an early disease stage. Breast conservation is the preferred locoregional approach, and oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is becoming more popular. This narrative review aims to discuss the challenges and uncertainties in target volume definition for postoperative radiation after these procedures, to improve radiation therapy decisions and encourage multidisciplinary.

Comparison of Tumor Bed Delineation Using a Novel Radiopaque Filament Marker Versus Surgical Clips for Targeting Breast Cancer Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Accuracy of tumor bed (TB) delineation is essential for targeting boost doses or partial breast irradiation. Multiple studies have shown high interobserver variability with standardly used surgical clip markers (CMs). We hypothesize that a radiopaque filament marker (FM) woven along the TB will improve TB delineation consistency.

METHODS

An FDA-approved FM was intraoperatively used to outline the TB of patients undergoing lumpectomy. Between January 2020 and January 2022, consecutive patients with FM placed after either (1) lumpectomy or (2) lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction were identified and compared with those with CM. Six "experts" (radiation oncologists specializing in breast cancer) across 2 institutions independently defined all TBs. Three metrics (volume variance, dice coefficient, and center of mass [COM] deviation). Two-tailed paired samples t tests were performed to compare FM and CM cohorts.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight total patients were evaluated (14 FM and 14 CM). In aggregate, differences in volume between expert contours were 29.7% (SD ± 58.8%) with FM and 55.4% (SD ± 105.9%) with CM ( P < 0.001). The average dice coefficient in patients with FM was 0.54 (SD ± 0.15), and with CM was 0.44 (SD ± 0.22) ( P < 0.001). The average COM deviation was 0.63 cm (SD ± 0.53 cm) for FM and 1.05 cm (SD ± 0.93 cm) for CM; ( P < 0.001). In the subset of patients who underwent lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction, the difference in average volume was 21.8% (SD ± 20.4%) with FM and 52.2% (SD ± 64.5%) with CM ( P <0.001). The average dice coefficient was 0.53 (SD ± 0.12) for FM versus 0.39 (SD ± 0.24) for CM ( P < 0.001). The average COM difference was 0.53 cm (SD ± 0.29 cm) with FM versus 1.25 cm (SD ± 1.08 cm) with CM ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

FM consistently outperformed CM in the setting of both standard lumpectomy and complex oncoplastic reconstruction. These data suggest the superiority of FM in TB delineation.

Review of Current Accepted Practices in Identification of the Breast Lumpectomy Tumor Bed

Purpose

Of the 260,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer annually in the United States, more than 60% are treated with breast-conserving surgery or lumpectomy, followed by radiation to decrease the chance of local recurrence. More than 70% of breast cancer recurrences are localized to the original tumor cavity. Hence, targeted radiation therapy after lumpectomy is critical for recurrence prevention. With 30,000 patients annually opting for oncoplastic reconstruction of the breast after lumpectomy to improve cosmesis, the resulting tissue rearrangement increases the difficulty for radiation oncologists to accurately delineate the cavity when planning radiation therapy. Owing to the absence of a standardized protocol, it is important to assess the efficacy of various methods used to mark the tumor cavity for improved delineation.

Methods and Materials

A keyword search and analysis was used to compile relevant articles on PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information).

Results

Currently, a common practice for tumor cavity localization is applying titanium surgical clips to the borders of lumpectomy cavity. Tissue movement and seroma formation both impact the positioning of surgical clips within the tumor cavity and lead to significant interobserver variability. Furthermore, the main application of surgical clips is to control the small vessels during surgery, and that can create confusion when the same clips are used for tumor bed localization. All alternative solutions present more precise tumor bed delineation but possess individual concerns with workflow integration, patient comfort, and accuracy. Though liquid-based fiducials were found to be the most effective for delineating tumor cavities, there are still drawbacks for clinical use.

Conclusions

These findings should encourage medical innovators to develop novel techniques for tumor cavity marking to increase delineation accuracy and effectively target at-risk tissue. Future solutions in this space should consider the properties of liquid-based fiducial markers to improve radiation oncologists' ability to precisely delineate the tumor cavity.

DE-MR simulation imaging for prone radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery: assessing its application in lumpectomy cavity delineation based on deformable image registration

Background

The application of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance (DE-MR) simulation imaging in lumpectomy cavity (LC) delineation for prone radiotherapy in patients with an invisible seroma or a low seroma clarity score (SCS) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) based on deformable image registration (DIR) was assessed.

Methods

Twenty-six patients who were suitable for radiotherapy in prone positions after BCS were enrolled, and both computed tomography (CT) and DE-MR simulation scans were acquired. The LC delineated based on titanium surgical clips on CT images was denoted as LC_CT. The LC delineated based on the signal of cavity boundaries on fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and multiphase delayed-enhancement T1-weighted imaging (DE-T1WI), which was performed at 2 min, 5 min and 10 min postinjection, were denoted as LC_T2, LC_2T1, LC_5T1 and LC_10T1, respectively. Afterwards, DIR was performed to compare the volumes and locations of the LCs with MIM software. The generalized conformity index (CIgen) of inter (intra) observer (Inter-CIgen and Intra-CIgen) was also used to explore the inter(intra) observer variation for LC delineation on each image modality.

Results

LC_CT–LC_10T1 provided the best conformal index (CI) and degree of inclusion (DI), increasing by 2.08% and 4.48% compared to LC_CT–LC_T2, 11.36% and 2.94% for LC_CT–LC_2T1, and 8.89% and 7.69% for LC_5T1–LC_CT, respectively. The center of mass (COM) of LC_CT–LC_10T1 decreased by 17.86%, 6.12% and 13.21% compared with that of LC_CT–LC_T2, LC_CT–LC_2T1 and LC_CT–LC_5T1, respectively. The agreement of LC delineation was strongest for 10th min DE-TIWI (coefficient of variation, COV = 2.30%, Inter-CIgen = 87.06%, Intra-CIgen = 92.64%).

Conclusion

For patients with a low SCS (SCS ≤ 2) after BCS, it is feasible to contour the LC based on prone DE-MR simulation images. Furthermore, the LC derived from prone DE-T1WI at 10 min was found to be most similar to that derived from prone CT simulation scans using titanium surgical clips regardless of the volume and location of the LC. Inter (intra) variability was minimal for the delineation of the LC based on 10th min DE-TIWI.

A novel, adaptable, radiographically opaque, multi-plane continuous filament marker for optimizing tissue identification, radiation planning, and radiographic follow-up

Background

In breast cancer treatment, marking the tumor bed is an important aspect of the surgical component of therapy. Clear delineation of the tumor bed allows radiation oncologists a defined target for planning and delivering postoperative radiation therapy (XRT). Tumor bed marking also allows radiographic follow-up of the tumor bed on subsequent breast imaging. The aim of this assessment is to evaluate the ease and feasibility of utilizing a tumor bed filament marker (VeraFormÒ, Videra Surgical inc., USA) as a marker in post-operative benign surgical sites and malignant breast surgical tumor beds in breast cancer surgery.

Methods

The filament marker is a novel radiopaque surgical filament that in lieu of clips and other markers is implanted in the surgical tumor bed during breast surgery. Following development of the filament marker, the researchers used breast phantoms and radiographic images to develop a series of geometric patterns of placement options that optimize comprehensive multi-plane radiographic interpretation of the exact tumor bed or surgical margin. Three breast surgeons at 3 separate institutions then used this filament as a continuous multi-plane marker in 20 patients during breast conservation surgery. In these patients, the filament marker was thus used to mark the tumor bed (breast cancer surgery) or surgical site (benign breast disease) instead of the more traditional devices such as clips or other metallic open framework devices. We then assessed 2 important factors related to this device; (I) the ease, feasibility, and accuracy of in vivo placement with oncoplastic and non-oncoplastic breast conservation surgery techniques; (II) the radiographic footprint this device left on standard imaging protocols of post-operative mammogram (MMG), computed tomography (CT) scan, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations, and ultrasounds (USs) for both routine follow-up imaging and for standard radiation planning.

Results

There were no adverse events reported with the use of this device. The cases were then reviewed by a multidisciplinary team that included the original surgeon, a breast radiologist, and radiation oncologist. Their unanimous evaluation was that the filament marker clearly delineated all sides and planes of the tumor bed (cancer surgery) or surgical site (benign disease). Regardless of surgical technique utilized, this information provided precise 3D guidance for radiation planning and delivery as well as radiographic follow-up. The surgeons involved reported that delineating the bed with the filament marker was a quick and easy procedure and did not interfere with performing the planned surgical technique. Radiologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists found that the filament marker was not only radiographically opaque on CT and MMG, but also caused no significant artifact on CT, MRI, US, or MMG.

Conclusions

The continuous multi-plane filament marker is a new device that fulfills the heretofore unmet need for safe and improved tumor bed and tissue site marking. It is an easy to place, non-palpable continuous multi-plane radiographic opaque tissue marker that seems to better delineate the tumor bed, regardless of type of breast surgery performed, while providing a more accurate 3D image for radiation planning and radiographic follow-up on MMG MRI, CT and US.

Interobserver variability (between radiation oncologist and radiation therapist) in tumor bed contouring after breast-conserving surgery

PURPOSE

To examine interobserver variability between the radiation oncologist (RTO) and the radiation therapist (RTT) in delineating the tumor bed (TB) in early breast cancer (BC).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who received a radiotherapy boost to the TB. In a first group, the clinical target volume (CTV) for the boost was the surgical bed, defined by using surgical clips. In a second group, the CTV was defined by identifying a seroma cavity or a metallic find on the scar. These contours were compared in terms of volume, number of slices, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).

RESULTS

Forty patients were assessed: 20 had surgical clips (group 1) while the other 20 had none (group 2). There was no difference in the number of slices contoured by the 2 operators for group 1, but a statistically significant difference emerged in the volumes: the RTT identified a TB that was a mean 45% smaller than the one identified by the RTO. Random differences were found between the 2 operators for group 2. The TBs delineated for this group were significantly larger (P<0.05) than those identified by the RTT for group 1. The mean Dice value between the RTO's and the RTT's TBs was 0.69±0.07 (range 0.53-0.81) for group 1 and 0.37±0.18 (range 0-0.58) for group 2 (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the use of clips coincided with less interoperator variability. With appropriate training, the RTT may play an important part in the multidisciplinary radiotherapy team.