1
|
de Geer AF, van Alphen MJA, Zuur CL, Loeve AJ, van Veen RLP, Karakullukcu MB. A hybrid registration method using the mandibular bone surface for electromagnetic navigation in mandibular surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2022; 17:1343-1353. [PMID: 35441961 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-022-02610-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 03/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To utilize navigated mandibular (reconstructive) surgery, accurate registration of the preoperative CT scan with the actual patient in the operating room (OR) is required. In this phantom study, the feasibility of a noninvasive hybrid registration method is assessed. This method consists of a point registration with anatomic landmarks for initialization and a surface registration using the bare mandibular bone surface for optimization. METHODS Three mandible phantoms with reference notches on two osteotomy planes were 3D printed. An electromagnetic tracking system in combination with 3D Slicer software was used for navigation. Different configurations, i.e., different surface point areas and number and configuration of surface points, were tested with a dentate phantom (A) in a metal-free environment. To simulate the intraoperative environment and different anatomies, the registration procedure was also performed with an OR bed using the dentate phantom and two (partially) edentulous phantoms with atypical anatomy (B and C). The accuracy of the registration was calculated using the notches on the osteotomy planes and was expressed as the target registration error (TRE). TRE values of less than 2.0 mm were considered as clinically acceptable. RESULTS In all experiments, the mean TRE was less than 2.0 mm. No differences were found using different surface point areas or number or configurations of surface points. Registration accuracy in the simulated intraoperative setting was-mean (SD)-0.96 (0.22), 0.93 (0.26), and 1.50 (0.28) mm for phantom A, phantom B, and phantom C. CONCLUSION Hybrid registration is a noninvasive method that requires only a small area of the bare mandibular bone surface to obtain high accuracy in phantom setting. Future studies should test this method in clinical setting during actual surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A F de Geer
- Verwelius 3D Lab, Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Educational Program Technical Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Delft University of Technology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Leiden, Delft, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M J A van Alphen
- Verwelius 3D Lab, Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - C L Zuur
- Verwelius 3D Lab, Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - A J Loeve
- Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - R L P van Veen
- Verwelius 3D Lab, Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M B Karakullukcu
- Verwelius 3D Lab, Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rawson RV, Adhikari C, Bierman C, Lo SN, Shklovskaya E, Rozeman EA, Menzies AM, van Akkooi ACJ, Shannon KF, Gonzalez M, Guminski AD, Tetzlaff MT, Stretch JR, Eriksson H, van Thienen JV, Wouters MW, Haanen JBAG, Klop WMC, Zuur CL, van Houdt WJ, Nieweg OE, Ch'ng S, Rizos H, Saw RPM, Spillane AJ, Wilmott JS, Blank CU, Long GV, van de Wiel BA, Scolyer RA. Pathological response and tumour bed histopathological features correlate with survival following neoadjuvant immunotherapy in stage III melanoma. Ann Oncol 2021; 32:766-777. [PMID: 33744385 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2020] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 03/10/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As part of the Optimal Neo-adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) clinical trial of neoadjuvant combination anti-programmed cell death protein 1/anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunotherapy for stage III melanoma, we sought to determine interobserver reproducibility of INMC histopathological assessment principles, identify specific tumour bed histopathological features of immunotherapeutic response that correlated with recurrence and relapse-free survival (RFS) and evaluate proposed INMC pathological response categories for predicting recurrence and RFS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinicopathological characteristics of lymph node dissection specimens of 83 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo clinical trial were evaluated. Two methods of assessing histological features of immunotherapeutic response were evaluated: the previously described immune-related pathologic response (irPR) score and our novel immunotherapeutic response score (ITRS). For a subset of cases (n = 29), cellular composition of the tumour bed was analysed by flow cytometry. RESULTS There was strong interobserver reproducibility in assessment of pathological response (κ = 0.879) and percentage residual viable melanoma (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.965). The immunotherapeutic response subtype with high fibrosis had the strongest association with lack of recurrence (P = 0.008) and prolonged RFS (P = 0.019). Amongst patients with criteria for pathological non-response (pNR, >50% viable tumour), all who recurred had ≥70% viable melanoma. Higher ITRS and irPR scores correlated with lack of recurrence in the entire cohort (P = 0.002 and P ≤ 0.0001). The number of B lymphocytes was significantly increased in patients with a high fibrosis subtype of treatment response (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS There is strong reproducibility for assessment of pathological response using INMC criteria. Immunotherapeutic response of fibrosis subtype correlated with improved RFS, and may represent a biomarker. Potential B-cell contribution to fibrosis development warrants further study. Reclassification of pNR to a threshold of ≥70% viable melanoma and incorporating additional criteria of <10% fibrosis subtype of response may identify those at highest risk of recurrence, but requires validation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R V Rawson
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, Australia
| | - C Adhikari
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, Australia
| | - C Bierman
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S N Lo
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - E Shklovskaya
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - E A Rozeman
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A M Menzies
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - K F Shannon
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - M Gonzalez
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - A D Guminski
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - M T Tetzlaff
- Department of Pathology, Dermatopathology and Oral Pathology Unit, The University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA; Department of Dermatology, Dermatopathology and Oral Pathology Unit, The University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
| | - J R Stretch
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - H Eriksson
- Theme Cancer, Skin Cancer Center/Department of Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J V van Thienen
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M W Wouters
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J B A G Haanen
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W M C Klop
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C L Zuur
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J van Houdt
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O E Nieweg
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - S Ch'ng
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - H Rizos
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - R P M Saw
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - A J Spillane
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - J S Wilmott
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - C U Blank
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G V Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - B A van de Wiel
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R A Scolyer
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Departments of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Sydney, Australia; Department of Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schoot RA, Theunissen EAR, Slater O, Lopez-Yurda M, Zuur CL, Gaze MN, Chang YC, Mandeville HC, Gains JE, Rajput K, Pieters BR, Davila Fajardo R, Talwar R, Caron HN, Balm AJM, Dreschler WA, Merks JHM. Hearing loss in survivors of childhood head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma: a long-term follow-up study. Clin Otolaryngol 2016; 41:276-83. [PMID: 26293165 DOI: 10.1111/coa.12527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/10/2015] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine the hearing status of survivors treated for head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma (HNRMS) at long-term follow-up. DESIGN Cross-sectional long-term follow-up study. SETTING Tertiary comprehensive cancer centre. PARTICIPANTS Survivors treated for HNRMS during childhood in two concurrent cohorts; survivors in London had been treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT-based local therapy); survivors in Amsterdam were treated with AMORE (Ablative surgery, MOuld technique afterloading brachytherapy and surgical REconstruction) if feasible, otherwise EBRT (AMORE-based local therapy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We assessed hearing status of HNRMS survivors at long-term follow-up. Hearing thresholds were obtained by pure-tone audiometry. METHODS We assessed the hearing thresholds, the number of patients with clinically relevant hearing loss and hearing impairment graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv4) and Boston criteria. Furthermore, we compared hearing loss between survivors treated with EBRT-based local therapy (London) and AMORE-based local therapy (Amsterdam). RESULTS Seventy-three survivors were included (median follow-up 11 years). We found clinically relevant hearing loss at speech frequencies in 19% of survivors. Multivariable analysis showed that survivors treated with EBRT-based treatment and those with parameningeal tumours had significantly more hearing impairment, compared to survivors treated with AMORE-based treatment and non-parameningeal tumours. CONCLUSIONS One in five survivors of HNRMS developed clinically relevant hearing loss. AMORE-based treatment resulted in less hearing loss compared to EBRT-based treatment. As hearing loss was highly prevalent and also occurred in survivors with orbital primaries, we recommend systematic audiological follow-up in all HNRMS survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R A Schoot
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E A R Theunissen
- Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - O Slater
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - M Lopez-Yurda
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - C L Zuur
- Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M N Gaze
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Y-C Chang
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - H C Mandeville
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - J E Gains
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - K Rajput
- Department of Audiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - B R Pieters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R Davila Fajardo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R Talwar
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - H N Caron
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A J M Balm
- Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W A Dreschler
- Department of Audiology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J H M Merks
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|