Contouring Analysis on Synthetic Contrast-Enhanced MR from GRMM-GAN and Implications on MR-Guide Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

MR-guided linear accelerators have been commercialized making MR-only planning and adaptation an appealing alternative circumventing MR-CT registration. However, obtaining daily contrast-enhanced MR images can be prohibitive due to the increased risk of side effects from repeated contrast injections. In this work, we evaluate the quality of contrast-enhanced multi-modal MR image synthesis network GRMM-GAN (gradient regularized multi-modal multi-discrimination sparse-attention fusion generative adversarial network) for MR-guided radiation therapy.

MATERIALS/METHODS

With IRB approval, we trained the GRMM-GAN based on 165 abdominal MR studies from 65 patients. Each study included T2, T1 pre-contrast (T1pre), and T1 contrast enhanced (T1ce) images. The two pre-contrast MR modalities, T2 and T1pre images were adopted as inputs for GRMM-GAN, and the T1ce image at the portal venous phase was used as an output. Ten MR scans containing 21 liver tumors were selected for contouring analysis. A Turing test was first given to six radiation oncologists, in which 100 real T1ce and synthetic T1ce image slices are randomly given to the radiation oncologists to determine the authenticity of the synthesis. We then invited two radiation oncologists (RadOnc 1 and RadOnc2) to manually contour the 21 liver tumors independently on the real T1ce images. RadOnc2 then performed contouring on the respective synthetic T1ce MRs. DICE coefficient (defined as the intersection over the average of two volumes) and Hausdorff distance (HD, measuring how far two volumes are from each other) were used as analysis metrics. The DICE coefficients were calculated from the two radiation oncologists' contours on the real T1ce MR for each tumor. The DICE coefficients were also calculated from RadOnc 2's contours on real and synthetic MRs. Besides, tumor center shifts were extracted. The tumor center of mass coordinates was extracted from real and synthetic volumes. The difference in the coordinates indicated the shifts in the superior-inferior (SI), right-left (RL), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions between real and synthetic tumor volumes.

RESULTS

An average of 52.3% test score was achieved from the six radiation oncologists, which is close to random guessing. RadOnc 1 and RadOnc 2, who had participated in the contouring analysis, achieved an average DICE of 0.91±0.02 from tumor volumes drawn on the real T1ce MRs. This result sets the inter-operator uncertainty baseline in the real clinical setting. RadOnc 2 achieved an average DICE (real vs. synth) of 0.90±0.04 and HD of 4.76±1.82 mm. Only sub-millimeter (SI: 0.67 mm, RL: 0.41 mm, AP: 0.39 mm) tumor center shifts were observed in all three directions.

CONCLUSION

The GRMM-GAN method has the potential for MR-guided liver radiation when contrast agents cannot be administered daily and provide synthetic contrast-enhanced MR for better tumor targeting. The network can produce synthetic MR images with satisfactory contour agreement and geometric integrity.

Addition of short-term androgen deprivation therapy to dose-escalated radiation therapy improves failure-free survival for select men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Dose-escalated (DE) radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve prostate cancer outcomes over standard-dose RT. The benefit of adding ADT to DE-RT for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PrCa) is uncertain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 636 men treated for IR-PrCa with DE-RT (>75Gy). The adult comorbidity evaluation-27 index classifed comorbidity. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests compared failure-free survival (FFS) with and without ADT.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent received DE-RT and 55% DE-RT with ADT (median 6 months). On Cox proportional hazard regression that adjusted for comorbidity and tumor characteristics, ADT improved FFS (adjusted hazard ratio 0.36; P = 0.004). Recursive partitioning analysis of men without ADT classified Gleason 4 + 3 = 7 or ≥50% positive cores as unfavorable disease. The addition of ADT to DE-RT improved 5-year FFS for men with unfavorable disease (81.6% versus 92.9%; P = 0.009) but did not improve FFS for men with favorable disease (96.3% versus 97.4%; P = 0.874). When stratified by comorbidity, ADT improved FFS for men with unfavorable disease and no or mild comorbidity (P = 0.006) but did not improve FFS for men with unfavorable disease and moderate or severe comorbidity (P = 0.380).

CONCLUSION

The addition of ADT to DE-RT improves FFS for men with unfavorable IR-PrCa, especially those with no or minimal comorbidity.