[Is the application of CAD useful for radiologists for passing the official tests required for outpatient breast imaging?]

PURPOSE

To analyze whether currently available CAD systems meet the diagnostic requirements for passing screening tests (first reader CAD) and to analyze whether the additional usage of CAD systems provides significant support for the diagnosing radiologist on the basis of official screening test cases (second reading by CAD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

200 images of 100 mammographies of 50 patients of an official screening test case collection were analyzed double-blind with and without CAD printouts (iCAD, USA ) by three radiologists: one experienced in breast analysis and CAD application, one experienced in mammography analysis but inexperienced in CAD usage, one with minimal experience with breast analysis and CAD application. All radiologists measured the largest diameter of any malignant mass. The mean value of these calculations was correlated to the largest diameter given by CAD prompts.

RESULTS

The mean sensitivity and specificity increased slightly as a result of the additional usage of CAD (1 and 0.6 %, resp.). Both values are not statistically significant. The highest effect was measured for the radiologist with CAD experience, while no effect was measured for the inexperienced radiologist. CAD met the sensitivity requirements but not the specificity criteria (96 and 20.3 %, resp.). The sizes given by CAD prompts corresponded significantly with the real sizes (r = 0.45, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A statistically significant effect of the use of CAD could not been detected dependent on the radiological experience or the CAD experience. The effect of CAD on radiologists is still subtle despite the highly sensitive CAD performance due to the high number of false positive prompts and thus does not reach statistical significance. Sizes given by CAD prompts correlate significantly with the real sizes of malignant lesions.

Prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck relies on surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, mostly a combination thereof. In patients treated with curative intent, the intensity of therapy is adapted to the supposed prognosis and should be defined upon prognostic factors. Besides classical prognostic parameters, T, N and M stage, the presence of extranodal growth (extracapsular spread, ECS), tumor volume, lymph node burden, extent of tumor necrosis, histologic grading, but also type of treatment were determined in consideration of prognosis. The p53 status does not correlate with prognosis in most investigations. The tumor hypoxia seems to be of prognostic value, and strategies to overcome the adverse effect are currently investigated. Not all factors are relevant for all types of treatment. Besides ECS, these new factors so far have rarely been used to stratify prospective combined modality treatment according to the risk of locoregional and distant failure.

Daily amifostine given concomitantly to chemoradiation in head and neck cancer. A pilot study

BACKGROUND

In patients with loco-regionally advanced head and neck cancer conventionally fractionated radiotherapy alone results in poor loco-regional control and survival rates. Treatment intensification by simultaneous administration of cytotoxic drugs produces higher acute morbidity. Therefore chemical radioprotection of normal tissues may be of clinical benefit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a pilot study patients with advanced nonresectable head and neck cancer treated with conventionally fractionated radical radiotherapy (60 to 66 Gy total doses) and concomitantly given 5-fluorouracil as protracted venous infusion, 250 mg/sqm/24 h over the entire treatment period were given amifostine 300 mg absolutely before each fraction. Acute treatment related morbidity was scored according to CTC classification and loco-regional control and survival rates were estimated. Comparison was made with a historical control group of identical chemoradiation but without amifostine application.

RESULTS

Chemoradiation induced oral mucositis was delayed and showed significant lower degrees at all 10 Gy increments (p < 0.05) except 60 Gy and over (p > 0.05). No significant toxicity was recorded with respect to blood pressure, serum calcium, potassium, hematologic parameters, emesis, nausea or body weight loss. Progression free survival and overall survival probability at 2 years were not statistically different in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Amifostine given before each fraction of radiotherapy over 6 weeks has no cumulative toxicity, was well tolerated and may reduce treatment induced oral mucositis. No tumor protective effect was observed.