1
|
Veenhuizen SGA, de Lange SV, Bakker MF, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Monninkhof EM, Emaus MJ, de Koekkoek-Doll PK, Bisschops RHC, Lobbes MBI, de Jong MDF, Duvivier KM, Veltman J, Karssemeijer N, de Koning HJ, van Diest PJ, Mali WPTM, van den Bosch MAAJ, van Gils CH, Veldhuis WB. Supplemental Breast MRI for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts: Results of the Second Screening Round of the DENSE Trial. Radiology 2021; 299:278-286. [PMID: 33724062 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Background In the first (prevalent) supplemental MRI screening round of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, a considerable number of breast cancers were found at the cost of an increased false-positive rate (FPR). In incident screening rounds, a lower cancer detection rate (CDR) is expected due to a smaller pool of prevalent cancers, and a reduced FPR, due to the availability of prior MRI examinations. Purpose To investigate screening performance indicators of the second round (incidence round) of the DENSE trial. Materials and Methods The DENSE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01315015) is embedded within the Dutch population-based biennial mammography screening program for women aged 50-75 years. MRI examinations were performed between December 2011 and January 2016. Women were eligible for the second round when they again had a negative screening mammogram 2 years after their first MRI. The recall rate, biopsy rate, CDR, FPR, positive predictive values, and distributions of tumor characteristics were calculated and compared with results of the first round using 95% CIs and χ2 tests. Results A total of 3436 women (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 48-64 years) underwent a second MRI screening. The CDR was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 3.8, 9.0) compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 13.3, 20.5) in the first round. The FPR was 26.3 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 21.5, 32.3) in the second round versus 79.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 72.4, 87.9) in the first round. The positive predictive value for recall was 18% (20 of 110 participants recalled; 95% CI: 12.1, 26.4), and the positive predictive value for biopsy was 24% (20 of 84 participants who underwent biopsy; 95% CI: 16.0, 33.9), both comparable to that of the first round. All tumors in the second round were stage 0-I and node negative. Conclusion The incremental cancer detection rate in the second round was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations-compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations in the first round. This was accompanied by a strong reduction in the number of false-positive results. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefanie G A Veenhuizen
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Stéphanie V de Lange
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Marije F Bakker
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Ritse M Mann
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Evelyn M Monninkhof
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Marleen J Emaus
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Petra K de Koekkoek-Doll
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Robertus H C Bisschops
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Mathijn D F de Jong
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Katya M Duvivier
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Nico Karssemeijer
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Harry J de Koning
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Paul J van Diest
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Willem P T M Mali
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Carla H van Gils
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| | -
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Peeters PHM, Monninkhof EM, Emaus MJ, Loo CE, Bisschops RHC, Lobbes MBI, de Jong MDF, Duvivier KM, Veltman J, Karssemeijer N, de Koning HJ, van Diest PJ, Mali WPTM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Veldhuis WB, van Gils CH. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2091-2102. [PMID: 31774954 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1903986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 338] [Impact Index Per Article: 67.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Extremely dense breast tissue is a risk factor for breast cancer and limits the detection of cancer with mammography. Data are needed on the use of supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve early detection and reduce interval breast cancers in such patients. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the Netherlands, we assigned 40,373 women between the ages of 50 and 75 years with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on screening mammography to a group that was invited to undergo supplemental MRI or to a group that received mammography screening only. The groups were assigned in a 1:4 ratio, with 8061 in the MRI-invitation group and 32,312 in the mammography-only group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the incidence of interval cancers during a 2-year screening period. RESULTS The interval-cancer rate was 2.5 per 1000 screenings in the MRI-invitation group and 5.0 per 1000 screenings in the mammography-only group, for a difference of 2.5 per 1000 screenings (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 3.7; P<0.001). Of the women who were invited to undergo MRI, 59% accepted the invitation. Of the 20 interval cancers that were diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the women who actually underwent MRI (0.8 per 1000 screenings) and 16 in those who did not accept the invitation (4.9 per 1000 screenings). The MRI cancer-detection rate among the women who actually underwent MRI screening was 16.5 per 1000 screenings (95% CI, 13.3 to 20.5). The positive predictive value was 17.4% (95% CI, 14.2 to 21.2) for recall for additional testing and 26.3% (95% CI, 21.7 to 31.6) for biopsy. The false positive rate was 79.8 per 1000 screenings. Among the women who underwent MRI, 0.1% had either an adverse event or a serious adverse event during or immediately after the screening. CONCLUSIONS The use of supplemental MRI screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on mammography resulted in the diagnosis of significantly fewer interval cancers than mammography alone during a 2-year screening period. (Funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht and others; DENSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01315015.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marije F Bakker
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Stéphanie V de Lange
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Ritse M Mann
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Petra H M Peeters
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Evelyn M Monninkhof
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Marleen J Emaus
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Claudette E Loo
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Robertus H C Bisschops
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Matthijn D F de Jong
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Katya M Duvivier
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Nico Karssemeijer
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Harry J de Koning
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Paul J van Diest
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Willem P T M Mali
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| | - Carla H van Gils
- From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.L., P.H.M.P., E.M.M., C.H.G.) and the Departments of Radiology (S.V.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.B., W.B.V.) and Pathology (P.J.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Dutch Expert Center for Screening (R.M.P.) and the Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (R.M.M., N.K.), Nijmegen, the Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (C.E.L.), and the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (K.M.D.), Amsterdam, the Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (R.H.C.B.), the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and the Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen (M.B.I.L.), the Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch (M.D.F.J.), the Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo (J.V.), and the Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (H.J.K.) - all in the Netherlands; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (P.H.M.P.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Maenhout M, Peters M, Moerland MA, Meijer RP, van den Bosch MAAJ, Frank SJ, Nguyen PL, van Vulpen M, van der Voort van Zyp JRN. MRI guided focal HDR brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: Toxicity, biochemical outcome and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 2018; 129:554-560. [PMID: 30131183 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [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: 03/31/2018] [Revised: 07/15/2018] [Accepted: 07/19/2018] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To describe toxicity, biochemical outcome and quality of life after MRI guided focal high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in a single fraction of 19 Gy for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between May 2013 and April 2016, 30 patients were treated by MRI-guided focal HDR-BT. Patients with visible tumour on MRI were included. All patients were ≥65 years, T-stage <T3, Gleason ≤7, PSA <10 ng/mL and IPSS <15. Focal irradiation was delivered in a single fraction of 19 Gy to the D95 of the clinical target volume. Toxicity was reported using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix criteria and quality of life was measured using validated questionnaires. RESULTS Median follow up was 24 months. One patient developed a grade 2 and 3 GU toxicity after treatment. In the other 29 patients, no grade 2 or higher perioperative complications occurred. Five patients developed a biochemical recurrence. For all measured time points, there was no statistically significant deterioration in quality of life. CONCLUSION Focal MRI guided HDR-BT confers low toxicity rates and maintains quality of life. Biochemical recurrence is rather high, 5 patients developed a biochemical recurrence according to the Phoenix definition. Longer evaluation of these patients is necessary and caution is warranted before implementing focal HDR-BT in patients with localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Metha Maenhout
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiotherapy, the Netherlands
| | - Max Peters
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiotherapy, the Netherlands
| | - Marinus A Moerland
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiotherapy, the Netherlands
| | - Richard P Meijer
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Urology, the Netherlands
| | | | - Steven J Frank
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Houston, USA
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Boston, USA
| | - Marco van Vulpen
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiotherapy, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Braat AJAT, Kwekkeboom DJ, Kam BLR, Teunissen JJM, de Herder WW, Dreijerink KMA, van Rooij R, Krijger GC, de Jong HWAM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Additional hepatic 166Ho-radioembolization in patients with neuroendocrine tumours treated with 177Lu-DOTATATE; a single center, interventional, non-randomized, non-comparative, open label, phase II study (HEPAR PLUS trial). BMC Gastroenterol 2018; 18:84. [PMID: 29902988 PMCID: PMC6003090 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0817-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2017] [Accepted: 06/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Neuroendocrine tumours (NET) consist of a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with various organs of origin. At diagnosis 21% of the patients with a Grade 1 NET and 30% with a Grade 2 NET have distant metastases. Treatment with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) shows a high objective response rate and long median survival after treatment. However, complete remission is almost never achieved. The liver is the most commonly affected organ in metastatic disease and is the most incriminating factor for patient survival. Additional treatment of liver disease after PRRT may improve outcome in NET patients. Radioembolization is an established therapy for liver metastasis. To investigate this hypothesis, a phase 2 study was initiated to assess effectiveness and toxicity of holmium-166 radioembolization (166Ho-RE) after PRRT with lutetium-177 (177Lu)-DOTATATE. Methods The HEPAR PLUS trial (“HolmiumEmbolizationParticles forArterialRadiotherapyPlus177Lu-DOTATATE inSalvage NET patients”) is a single centre, interventional, non-randomized, non-comparative, open label study. In this phase 2 study 30–48 patients with > 3 measurable liver metastases according to RECIST 1.1 will receive additional 166Ho-RE within 20 weeks after the 4th and last cycle of PRRT with 7.4 GBq 177Lu-DOTATATE. Primary objectives are to assess tumour response, complete and partial response according to RECIST 1.1, and toxicity, based on CTCAE v4.03, 3 months after 166Ho-RE. Secondary endpoints include biochemical response, quality of life, biodistribution and dosimetry. Discussion This is the first prospective study to combine PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATATE and additional 166Ho-RE in metastatic NET. A radiation boost on intrahepatic disease using 166Ho-RE may lead to an improved response rate without significant additional side-effects. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02067988, 13 February 2014. Protocol version: 6, 30 november 2016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur J A T Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Dik J Kwekkeboom
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015, CE, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Boen L R Kam
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015, CE, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jaap J M Teunissen
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015, CE, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter W de Herder
- Department of Endocrinology, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015, CE, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Koen M A Dreijerink
- Department of Endocrinology, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 117, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rob van Rooij
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Gerard C Krijger
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hugo W A M de Jong
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Merckel LG, Verburg E, van der Velden BHM, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ, Gilhuijs KGA. Eligibility of patients for minimally invasive breast cancer therapy based on MRI analysis of tumor proximity to skin and pectoral muscle. Breast J 2017; 24:501-508. [PMID: 29286193 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [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: 06/30/2016] [Revised: 11/11/2016] [Accepted: 11/16/2017] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
There is growing interest in minimally invasive breast cancer therapy. Eligibility of patients is, however, dependent on several factors related to the tumor and treatment technology. The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of patients eligible for minimally invasive breast cancer therapy for different safety and treatment margins based on breast tumor location. Patients with invasive ductal cancer were selected from the MARGINS cohort. Semiautomatic segmentation of tumor, skin, and pectoral muscle was performed in Magnetic Resonance images. Shortest distances of tumors to critical organs (ie, skin and pectoral muscle) were calculated. Proportions of eligible patients were determined for different safety and treatment margins. Three-hundred-forty-eight patients with 351 tumors were included. If a 10 mm safety margin to skin and pectoral muscle is required without treatment margin, 72.3% of patients would be eligible for minimally invasive treatment. This proportion decreases to 45.9% for an additional treatment margin of 5 mm. Shortest distances between tumors and critical organs are larger in older patients and in patients with less aggressive tumor subtypes. If a 10 mm safety margin to skin and pectoral muscle is required, more than two-thirds of patients would be eligible for minimally invasive breast cancer therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura G Merckel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Verburg
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Bas H M van der Velden
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Claudette E Loo
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Maenhout M, Peters M, van Vulpen M, Moerland MA, Meijer RP, van den Bosch MAAJ, Nguyen PL, Frank SJ, van der Voort van Zyp JRN. Focal MRI-Guided Salvage High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy in Patients With Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2017; 16:1194-1201. [PMID: 29333958 PMCID: PMC5762090 DOI: 10.1177/1533034617741797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Whole-gland salvage treatment of radiorecurrent prostate cancer has a high rate of severe toxicity. The standard of care in case of a biochemical recurrence is androgen deprivation treatment, which is associated with morbidity and negative effects on quality of life. A salvage treatment with acceptable toxicity might postpone the start of androgen deprivation treatment, might have a positive influence on the patients’ quality of life, and might even be curative. Here, toxicity and biochemical outcome are described after magnetic resonance imaging–guided focal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients with pathologically proven locally recurrent prostate cancer were treated with focal high-dose-rate brachytherapy in a single 19-Gy fraction using magnetic resonance imaging for treatment guidance. Primary radiotherapy consisted of external beam radiotherapy or low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Tumors were delineated with Ga-68–prostate-specific membrane antigen or F18-choline positron emission tomography in combination with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. All patients had a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 10 ng/mL at the time of recurrence and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≥12 months. Toxicity was measured by using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. Results: Eight of 17 patients had follow-up interval of at least 1 year. At a median follow-up interval of 10 months (range 3-40 months), 1 patient experienced a biochemical recurrence according to the Phoenix criteria, and prostate-specific membrane antigen testing revealed that this was due to a distant nodal metastasis. One patient had a grade 3 urethral stricture at 2 years after treatment. Conclusion: Focal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with radiorecurrent prostate cancer showed grade 3 toxicity in 1 of 17 patients and a distant nodal metastasis in another patient. Whether this treatment option leads to cure in a subset of patients or whether it can successfully postpone androgen deprivation treatment needs further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Metha Maenhout
- 1 Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Max Peters
- 1 Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marco van Vulpen
- 2 Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marinus A Moerland
- 1 Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Richard P Meijer
- 1 Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Paul L Nguyen
- 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Samim M, van Veenendaal LM, Braat MNGJA, van den Hoven AF, Van Hillegersberg R, Sangro B, Kao YH, Liu D, Louie JD, Sze DY, Rose SC, Brown DB, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kim E, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Recommendations for radioembolisation after liver surgery using yttrium-90 resin microspheres based on a survey of an international expert panel. Eur Radiol 2017; 27:4923-4930. [PMID: 28674968 PMCID: PMC5674129 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4889-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2016] [Revised: 03/15/2017] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Guidelines on how to adjust activity in patients with a history of liver surgery who are undergoing yttrium-90 radioembolisation (90Y-RE) are lacking. The aim was to study the variability in activity prescription in these patients, between centres with extensive experience using resin microspheres 90Y-RE, and to draw recommendations on activity prescription based on an expert consensus. METHODS The variability in activity prescription between centres was investigated by a survey of international experts in the field of 90Y-RE. Six representative post-surgical patients (i.e. comparable activity prescription, different outcome) were selected. Information on patients' disease characteristics and data needed for activity calculation was presented to the expert panel. Reported was the used method for activity prescription and whether, how and why activity reduction was found indicated. RESULTS Ten experts took part in the survey. Recommendations on activity reduction were highly variable between the expert panel. The median intra-patient range was 44 Gy (range 18-55 Gy). Reductions in prescribed activity were recommended in 68% of the cases. In consensus, a maximum DTarget of 50 Gy was recommended. CONCLUSION With a current lack of guidelines, large variability in activity prescription in post-surgical patients undergoing 90Y-RE exists. In consensus, DTarget ≤50 Gy is recommended. KEY POINTS • BSA method does not account for a decreased remnant liver volume after surgery. • In post-surgical patients, a volume-based activity determination method is recommended. • In post-surgical patients, a mean D Target of ≤ 50Gy should be aimed for.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morsal Samim
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Linde M van Veenendaal
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Manon N G J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Bruno Sangro
- Liver Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra-IDISNA and CIBEREHD, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Yung Hsiang Kao
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Dave Liu
- Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - John D Louie
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, USA
| | - Daniel Y Sze
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, USA
| | - Steven C Rose
- Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA
| | - Daniel B Brown
- Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University, Medical Center North, Nashville, USA
| | | | - Edward Kim
- Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA
| | | | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Prince JF, van den Bosch MAAJ, Nijsen JFW, Smits MLJ, van den Hoven AF, Nikolakopoulos S, Wessels FJ, Bruijnen RCG, Braat MNGJA, Zonnenberg BA, Lam MGEH. Efficacy of Radioembolization with 166Ho-Microspheres in Salvage Patients with Liver Metastases: A Phase 2 Study. J Nucl Med 2017; 59:582-588. [PMID: 28916623 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.197194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [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: 06/08/2017] [Accepted: 09/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Radioembolization of liver malignancies with 166Ho-microspheres has been shown to be safe in a phase 1 dose-escalation study. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of 166Ho radioembolization. Methods: In this prospective single-arm study, 56 patients were enrolled, all with liver metastases refractory to systemic therapy and ineligible for surgical resection. The primary outcome was a response by 2 target lesions on triphasic liver CT scans 3 mo after therapy, as assessed using RECIST, version 1.1. Secondary outcomes included overall tumor response, time to imaging progression, overall survival, toxicity, quality of life, and quantification of the microspheres on SPECT and MRI. Results: Between May 2012 and March 2015, 38 eligible patients were treated, one of whom was not evaluable. In 27 (73%) of 37 patients, the target lesions showed complete response, partial response, or stable disease (disease control) at 3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 57%-85%). The median overall survival was 14.5 mo (95% CI, 8.6-22.8 mo). For colorectal cancer patients (n = 23), the median overall survival was 13.4 mo (95% CI, 8.2-15.7 mo). Grade 3 or 4 toxic events after treatment (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) included abdominal pain (in 18% of patients), nausea (8%), ascites (3%), fatigue (3%), gastric stenosis (3%), hepatic failure (3%), liver abscesses (3%), paroxysmal atrial tachycardia (3%), thoracic pain (3%), upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (3%), and vomiting (3%). On SPECT, 166Ho could be quantified with high accuracy and precision, with a mean overestimation of 9.3% ± 7.1% in the liver. Conclusion: Radioembolization with 166Ho-microspheres induced a tumor response with an acceptable toxicity profile in salvage patients with liver metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Johannes F W Nijsen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Maarten L J Smits
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Stavros Nikolakopoulos
- Department of Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Frank J Wessels
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Rutger C G Bruijnen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Manon N G J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Bernard A Zonnenberg
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Braat AJAT, Prince JF, van Rooij R, Bruijnen RCG, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Safety analysis of holmium-166 microsphere scout dose imaging during radioembolisation work-up: A cohort study. Eur Radiol 2017; 28:920-928. [PMID: 28786008 PMCID: PMC5811583 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4998-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2017] [Revised: 05/21/2017] [Accepted: 07/18/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Objective Radioembolisation is generally preceded by a scout dose of technetium-99m-macroaggregated albumin to estimate extrahepatic shunting of activity. Holmium-166 microspheres can be used as a scout dose (±250 MBq) and as a therapeutic dose. The general toxicity of a holmium-166 scout dose (166Ho-SD) and safety concerns of an accidental extrahepatic deposition of 166Ho-SD were investigated. Methods All patients who received a 166Ho-SD in our institute were reviewed for general toxicity and extrahepatic depositions. The absorbed dose in extrahepatic tissue was calculated on SPECT/CT and correlated to clinical toxicities. Results In total, 82 patients were included. No relevant clinical toxicity occurred. Six patients had an extrahepatic deposition of 166Ho-SD (median administered activity 270 MBq). The extrahepatic depositions (median activity 3.7 MBq) were located in the duodenum (3x), gastric fundus, falciform ligament and the lesser curvature of the stomach, and were deposited in a median volume of 15.3 ml, which resulted in an estimated median absorbed dose of 3.6 Gy (range 0.3–13.8 Gy). No adverse events related to the extrahepatic deposition of the 166Ho-SD occurred after a median follow-up of 4 months (range 1–12 months). Conclusion These results support the safety of 250 MBq 166Ho-SD in a clinical setting. Key Points • A holmium-166 scout dose is safe in a clinical setting. • Holmium-166 scout dose is a safe alternative for99mTc-MAA for radioembolisation work-up. • Holmium-166 scout dose potentially has several benefits over99mTc-MAA for radioembolisation work-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur J A T Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer E01.132, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer E01.132, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rob van Rooij
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer E01.132, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger C G Bruijnen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer E01.132, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer E01.132, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer E01.132, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Knuttel FM, Huijsse SEM, Feenstra TL, Moonen CTW, van den Bosch MAAJ, Buskens E, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Early health technology assessment of magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound ablation for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. J Ther Ultrasound 2017; 5:23. [PMID: 28781881 PMCID: PMC5537939 DOI: 10.1186/s40349-017-0101-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2017] [Accepted: 07/03/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation is in development for minimally invasive treatment of breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness has not been assessed yet. An early health technology assessment was performed to estimate costs of MR-HIFU ablation, compared to breast conserving treatment (BCT). METHODS An MR-HIFU treatment model using the dedicated MR-HIFU breast system (Sonalleve, Philips Healthcare) was developed. Input parameters (treatment steps and duration) were based on the analysis of questionnaire data from an expert panel. MR-HIFU experts assessed face validity of the model. Data collected by questionnaires were compared to published data of an MR-HIFU breast feasibility study. Treatment costs for tumours of 1 to 3 cm were calculated. RESULTS The model structure was considered of acceptable face validity by consulted experts, and questionnaire data and published data were comparable. Costs of MR-HIFU ablation were higher than BCT costs. MR-HIFU best-case scenario costs exceeded BCT costs with approximately €1000. Cooling times and breathing correction contributed most to treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS MR-HIFU ablation is currently not a cost-effective alternative for BCT. MR-HIFU experience is limited, increasing uncertainty of estimations. The potential for cost-effectiveness increases if future research reduces treatment durations and might substantiate equal or improved results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Floortje M Knuttel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sèvrin E M Huijsse
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30 001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Talitha L Feenstra
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30 001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Chrit T W Moonen
- Center of Image Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Buskens
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30 001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Marcel J W Greuter
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30 001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Geertruida H de Bock
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30 001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Knuttel FM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Young-Afat DA, Emaus MJ, van den Bongard DHJG, Witkamp AJ, Verkooijen HM. Patient Preferences for Minimally Invasive and Open Locoregional Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Value Health 2017; 20:474-480. [PMID: 28292493 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2016] [Revised: 10/20/2016] [Accepted: 10/23/2016] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Noninvasive or minimally invasive treatments are being developed as alternatives to surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Patients' preferences with regard to these new treatments have not been investigated. OBJECTIVES To assess preferences of patients with breast cancer and of healthy women regarding these new techniques, compared with conventional surgical treatments. METHODS Six hypothetical breast cancer treatment-outcome scenarios were developed: three standard surgical scenarios (mastectomy, mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction, and breast-conserving therapy [BCT]) and three minimally invasive or noninvasive scenarios (radiofrequency ablation, magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation, and single-dose ablative radiotherapy). Participants rated treatment-outcome scenarios by visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO). The Friedman and post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to test whether scores were significantly different from BCT. RESULTS Seventy-one patients with breast cancer and 50 healthy volunteers participated. Overall, BCT was rated the highest in terms of VAS (0.80) and TTO (0.90) scores. After stratification, BCT ranked the highest in most subgroups, with the exception of healthy individuals, who had given the highest score to ablative boost (VAS, 0.80; TTO, 0.88). Mastectomy with immediate reconstruction was the least preferred in most subgroups. CONCLUSIONS This study showed no significant preference for minimally invasive treatment for breast cancer. Using hypothetical scenarios, breast cancer survivors attributed the highest scores to BCT, whereas healthy volunteers showed a slight preference for minimally invasive treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Floortje M Knuttel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Danny A Young-Afat
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marleen J Emaus
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Arjen J Witkamp
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Helena M Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Smits MLJ, Bastiaannet R, Prince JF, de Jong HWAM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Lung Shunting: An Indicator of Survival, But Not Necessarily a Tool for Selecting Patients for Radioembolization. Radiology 2017; 282:612-613. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
13
|
Braat MNGJA, de Jong HW, Seinstra BA, Scholten MV, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy may improve radioembolization treatment planning in HCC patients. EJNMMI Res 2017; 7:2. [PMID: 28058660 PMCID: PMC5215993 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-016-0248-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2016] [Accepted: 12/15/2016] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Routine work-up for transarterial radioembolization, based on clinical and laboratory parameters, sometimes fails, resulting in severe hepatotoxicity in up to 5% of patients. Quantitative assessment of the pretreatment liver function and its segmental distribution, using hepatobiliary scintigraphy may improve patient selection and treatment planning. A case series will be presented to illustrate the potential of this technique. Hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A and B) underwent hepatobiliary scintigraphy pre- and 3 months post-radioembolization as part of a prospective study protocol, which was prematurely terminated because of limited accrual. Included patients were analysed together with their clinical, laboratory and treatment data. RESULTS Pretreatment-corrected 99mTc-mebrofenin liver uptake rates were marginal (1.8-3.0%/min/m2), despite acceptable clinical and laboratory parameters. Posttreatment liver functions seriously declined (corrected 99mTc-mebrofenin liver uptake rates: 0.6-2.4%/min/m2), resulting in lethal radioembolization-induced liver disease in two out of three patients. CONCLUSIONS Hepatobiliary scintigraphy may be of added value during work-up for radioembolization, to estimate liver function reserve and its segmental distribution, especially in patients with underlying cirrhosis, for whom analysis of clinical and laboratory parameters may not be sufficient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manon N G J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Hugo W de Jong
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Beatrijs A Seinstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | - Mike V Scholten
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Menezes GLG, Stehouwer BL, Klomp DWJ, van der Velden TA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Knuttel FM, Boer VO, van der Kemp WJM, Luijten PR, Veldhuis WB. Erratum to: Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI at 7T and 3T: an intra-individual comparison study. SpringerPlus 2016; 5:1012. [PMID: 27398285 PMCID: PMC4936985 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2514-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2016] [Accepted: 06/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
|
15
|
van den Hoven AF, Prince JF, Bruijnen RCG, Verkooijen HM, Krijger GC, Lam MGEH, van den Bosch MAAJ. Surefire infusion system versus standard microcatheter use during holmium-166 radioembolization: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17:520. [PMID: 27782851 PMCID: PMC5080784 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1643-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2016] [Accepted: 10/05/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background An anti-reflux catheter (ARC) may increase the tumor absorbed dose during radioembolization (RE) by elimination of particle reflux and its effects on hemodynamics. Since the catheter is fixed in a centro-luminal position, it may also increase the predictive accuracy of a scout dose administration before treatment. The purpose of the SIM trial is to compare the effects of ARC use during RE with holmium-166 (166Ho) microspheres in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), with the use of a standard end-hole microcatheter. Methods/Design A within-patient randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted in 25 patients with unresectable chemorefractory liver-dominant CRLM. Study participants will undergo a 166Ho scout dose procedure in the morning and a therapeutic procedure in the afternoon. The ARC will be randomly allocated to the left/right hepatic artery, and a standard microcatheter will be used in the contralateral artery. SPECT/CT imaging will be performed for quantitative analyses of the microsphere distribution directly after the scout and treatment procedure. Baseline and follow-up investigations include 18F-FDG-PET + liver CT, clinical and laboratory examinations. The primary endpoint is the comparison of tumor to non-tumor (T/N) activity ratio in both groups. Secondary endpoints include comparisons of mean absorbed dose in tumors and healthy liver tissue, infusion efficiency, the predictive value of 166Ho scout dose for tumor response. In the entire cohort, a dose-response relationship, clinical toxicity, and overall survival will be assessed. The sample was determined for the expectation that the ARC will increase the T/N ratio by 25 % (mean T/N ratio 2.0 vs. 1.6). Discussion The SIM trial is a within-patient RCT that will assess whether 166Ho RE treatment can be optimized by using an ARC. Trial registration The SIM trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02208804). Registered on 31 July 2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1643-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger C G Bruijnen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Helena M Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gerard C Krijger
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
van Breugel JMM, Wijlemans JW, Vaessen HHB, de Greef M, Moonen CTW, van den Bosch MAAJ, Ries MG. Procedural sedation and analgesia for respiratory-gated MR-HIFU in the liver: a feasibility study. J Ther Ultrasound 2016; 4:19. [PMID: 27478615 PMCID: PMC4966712 DOI: 10.1186/s40349-016-0063-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2016] [Accepted: 07/08/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous studies demonstrated both pre-clinically and clinically the feasibility of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablations in the liver. To overcome the associated problem of respiratory motion of the ablation area, general anesthesia (GA) and mechanical ventilation was used in conjunction with either respiratory-gated energy delivery or energy delivery during induced apnea. However, clinical procedures requiring GA are generally associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and complication rate compared to procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). Furthermore, PSA is associated with faster recovery and an increased eligibility for non- and mini-invasive interventions. METHODS In this study, we investigate both in an animal model and on a small patient group the kinetics of the diaphragm during free-breathing, when a tailored remifentanil/propofol-based PSA protocol inducing partial respiratory depression is used. Subsequently, we demonstrate in an animal study the compatibility of the resulting respiratory pattern of the PSA protocol with a gated HIFU ablation in the liver by direct comparison with gated ablations conducted under GA. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed for statistical analysis of non-perfused and necrosed tissue volumes. Duty cycles (ratio or percentage of the breathing cycle with the diaphragm in its resting position, such that acoustic energy delivery with MR-HIFU was allowed) were statistically compared for both GA and PSA using student's t tests. RESULTS In both animal and human experiments, the breathing frequency was decreased below 9/min, while maintaining stable vital functions. Furthermore an end-exhalation resting phase was induced by this PSA protocol during which the diaphragm is virtually immobile. Median non-perfused volumes, non-viable volumes based on NADH staining, and duty cycles were larger under PSA than under GA or equal. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that MR-HIFU ablations of the liver under PSA are feasible and potentially increase the non-invasive nature of this type of intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johanna M. M. van Breugel
- Division of Imaging, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Postbox: 85500, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Joost W. Wijlemans
- Division of Imaging, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Martijn de Greef
- Division of Imaging, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Chrit T. W. Moonen
- Division of Imaging, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Mario G. Ries
- Division of Imaging, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
van den Hoven AF, Braat MNGJA, Prince JF, van Doormaal PJ, van Leeuwen MS, Lam MGEH, van den Bosch MAAJ. Liver CT for vascular mapping during radioembolisation workup: comparison of an early and late arterial phase protocol. Eur Radiol 2016; 27:61-69. [PMID: 27108297 PMCID: PMC5127855 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4343-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2015] [Revised: 03/20/2016] [Accepted: 03/21/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Objectives To compare right gastric (RGA) and segment 4 artery (A4) origin detection rates during radioembolisation workup between early and late arterial phase liver CT protocols. Methods 100 consecutive patients who underwent liver CT between May 2012–January 2015 with early or late arterial phase protocol (n = 50 each, 10- vs. 20-s post-threshold delay) were included. RGA/A4 origin detection rates, assessed by two raters, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the hepatic artery relative to the portal vein were compared between the protocols. Results The first–second rater scored the RGA origin as visible in 58–65 % (specific proportion of agreement 82 %, κ = 0.62); A4 origin in 96–89 % (94 %, κ = 0.54). Thirty-six percent of RGA origins not detectable by DSA were identified on CT. Origin detection rates were not significantly different for early/late arterial phases. Mean CNR was higher in the early arterial phase protocol (1.7 vs. 1.2, p < 0.001). Conclusion A 10-s delay arterial phase CT protocol does not significantly improve detection of small intra- and extrahepatic branches. RGA origin detection requires further optimization, whereas A4/MHA origin detection is adequate, with good inter-rater reproducibility. CT remains important for preprocedural planning, because it may reveal arterial anatomy not discernible on DSA. Key Points • An early arterial phase does not significantly improve RGA and A4/MHA origin detection. • RGA origin detection (58–65 %) on CT is still suboptimal. • 36 % of RGA origins undetectable on DSA can be identified on CT. • A4/MHA origin detection (89–96 %) on CT is excellent. • Inter-rater reproducibility is good for RGA and A4/MHA origin detection on CT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Manon N G J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J van Doormaal
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten S van Leeuwen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Braat MNGJA, van den Hoven AF, van Doormaal PJ, Bruijnen RC, Lam MGEH, van den Bosch MAAJ. The Caudate Lobe: The Blind Spot in Radioembolization or an Overlooked Opportunity? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016; 39:847-54. [DOI: 10.1007/s00270-016-1321-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2015] [Accepted: 02/22/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
|
19
|
Knuttel FM, Waaijer L, Merckel LG, van den Bosch MAAJ, Witkamp AJ, Deckers R, van Diest PJ. Histopathology of breast cancer after magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound and radiofrequency ablation. Histopathology 2016; 69:250-9. [PMID: 26732321 DOI: 10.1111/his.12926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [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: 11/10/2015] [Revised: 12/29/2015] [Accepted: 01/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are being researched as possible substitutes for surgery in breast cancer patients. The histopathological appearance of ablated tissue has not been studied in great detail. This study aimed to compare histopathological features of breast cancer after MR-HIFU ablation and RFA. METHODS AND RESULTS MR-HIFU ablation and RFA were performed in- and ex-vivo. Tumours in six mastectomy specimens were partially ablated with RFA or MR-HIFU. In-vivo MR-HIFU ablation was performed 3-6 days before excision; RFA was performed in the operation room. Tissue was fixed in formalin and processed to haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and cytokeratin-8 (CK-8)-stained slides. Morphology and cell viability were assessed. Ex-vivo ablation resulted in clear morphological changes after RFA versus subtle differences after MR-HIFU. CK-8 staining was decreased or absent. H&E tended to underestimate the size of thermal damage. In-vivo MR-HIFU resulted in necrotic-like changes. Surprisingly, some ablated lesions were CK-8-positive. Histopathology after in-vivo RFA resembled ex-vivo RFA, with hyper-eosinophilic stroma and elongated nuclei. Lesion borders were sharp after MR-HIFU and indistinct after RFA. CONCLUSION Histopathological differences between MR-HIFU-ablated tissue and RF-ablated tissue were demonstrated. CK-8 was more reliable for cell viability assessment than H&E when used directly after ablation, while H&E was more reliable in ablated tissue left in situ for a few days. Our results contribute to improved understanding of histopathological features in breast cancer lesions treated with minimally invasive ablative techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Floortje M Knuttel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Laurien Waaijer
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Laura G Merckel
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Arjen J Witkamp
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Roel Deckers
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Menezes GLG, Stehouwer BL, Klomp DWJ, van der Velden TA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Knuttel FM, Boer VO, van der Kemp WJM, Luijten PR, Veldhuis WB. Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI at 7T and 3T: an intra-individual comparison study. Springerplus 2016; 5:13. [PMID: 26759752 PMCID: PMC4700043 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1654-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2015] [Accepted: 12/21/2015] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the current state of lesion identification, the BI-RADS classification and the contrast-enhancement behavior at 7T and 3T breast MRI in the same patient group. Twenty-seven patients with thirty suspicious lesions were selected for this prospective study and underwent both 7T and 3T MRI. All examinations were rated by two radiologists (R1 and R2) independently on image quality, lesion identification and BI-RADS classification. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV, observer agreement, lesion sizes, and contrast-enhancement-to-noise ratios (CENRs) of mass lesions. Fifteen of seventeen histopathological proven malignant lesions were detected at both field strengths. Image quality of the dynamic series was good at 7T, and excellent at 3T (P = 0.001 for R1 and P = 0.88 for R2). R1 found higher rates of specificity, NPV and PPV at 7T when compared to 3T, while R2 found the same results for sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV for both field strengths. The observers showed excellent agreement for BI-RADS categories at 7T (κ = 0.86) and 3T (κ = 0.93). CENRs were higher at 7T (P = 0.015). Lesion sizes were bigger at 7T according to R2 (P = 0.039). Our comparison study shows that 7T MRI allows BI-RADS conform analysis. Technical improvements, such as acquisition of T2w sequences and adjustment of B1+ field inhomogeneity, are still necessary to allow clinical use of 7T breast MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gisela L G Menezes
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Bertine L Stehouwer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Dennis W J Klomp
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Tijl A van der Velden
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Floortje M Knuttel
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Vincent O Boer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Wybe J M van der Kemp
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Peter R Luijten
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
This chapter describes several aspects of MR-HIFU treatment for breast cancer. The current and future applications, technical developments and clinical results are discussed. MR-HIFU ablation is under investigation for the treatment of breast cancer, but is not yet ready for clinical implementation. Firstly, the efficacy of MR-HIFU ablation should be investigated in large trials. The existing literature shows that results of initial, small studies are moderate, but opportunities for improvement are available. Careful patient selection, taking treatment margins into account and using a dedicated breast system might improve treatment outcomes. MRI-guidance has proven to be beneficial for the accuracy and safety of HIFU treatments because of its usefulness before, during and after treatments. In conclusion, MR-HIFU is promising for the treatment of breast cancer and might lead to a change in breast cancer care in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Floortje M Knuttel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
van Breugel JMM, Nijenhuis RJ, Ries MG, Toorop RJ, Vonken EJPA, Wijlemans JW, van den Bosch MAAJ. Non-invasive magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound ablation of a vascular malformation in the lower extremity: a case report. J Ther Ultrasound 2015; 3:23. [PMID: 26719802 PMCID: PMC4696245 DOI: 10.1186/s40349-015-0042-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2015] [Accepted: 12/10/2015] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Therapy of choice for symptomatic vascular malformations consists of surgery, sclerotherapy, or embolization. However, these techniques are invasive with possible complications and require hospitalization. We present a novel non-invasive technique, i.e., magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation, for the treatment of a vascular malformation in a patient. This technique applies high-intensity sound waves transcutaneously to the body and is fully non-invasive. MRI guidance is the novel aspect of HIFU treatments and is used for exquisite delineation and localization of the lesion and accurate real-time temperature monitoring during tissue ablation. MR-HIFU is a well-established treatment option for uterine fibroids and is currently being investigated for, e.g., bone tumors, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and liver cancer. MR-HIFU of vascular malformations has not been a topic of research yet. Case description Volumetric MR-HIFU ablation of a vascular malformation in the lower extremity of an 18-year-old male patient was performed. Temperatures of 62–80 °C were reached in the target lesion with sonications of 4 × 4 × 8 mm using powers of 200 W for <20 s. At 1-month follow-up, the patient reported qualitatively sustained reduction of pain and normal motor function. Three-month follow-up imaging indicated successful nidus destruction, which resulted in reduction of >30 % of the tumor volume. After 13 months, pain score was reduced to <2 after extreme exertion for several hours and to 0 for daily activities. Discussion and evaluation Radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation are minimally invasive techniques that have been tried on low-flow vascular malformations with inconsistent results. Furthermore, both techniques require probe insertion, which is associated with risks of wound infection and hospitalization. Since MR-HIFU is truly non-invasive, these risks are negligible. Conclusions In conclusion, we reported a successful non-invasive treatment of a vascular malformation with MR-HIFU in a clinical patient including long-term follow-up data for the first time. The patient reported qualitatively sustained pain reduction up to 13 months post treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Robbert J Nijenhuis
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Mario G Ries
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Raechel J Toorop
- Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Evert-Jan P A Vonken
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Joost W Wijlemans
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Hoogendam JP, Zweemer RP, Hobbelink MGG, van den Bosch MAAJ, Verheijen RHM, Veldhuis WB. 99mTc-Nanocolloid SPECT/MRI Fusion for the Selective Assessment of Nonenlarged Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. J Nucl Med 2015; 57:551-6. [PMID: 26678614 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.164780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [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: 07/30/2015] [Accepted: 11/23/2015] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED We aimed to explore the accuracy of (99m)Tc SPECT/MRI fusion for the selective assessment of nonenlarged sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) for diagnosing metastases in early-stage cervical cancer patients. METHODS We consecutively included stage IA1-IIB1 cervical cancer patients who presented to our tertiary referral center between March 2011 and February 2015. Patients with enlarged lymph nodes (short axis ≥ 10 mm) on MRI were excluded. Patients underwent an SLN procedure with preoperative (99m)Tc-nanocolloid SPECT/CT-based SLN mapping. When fused datasets of the SPECT and MR images were created, SLNs could be identified on the MR image with accurate correlation to the histologic result of each individual SLN. An experienced radiologist, masked to histology, retrospectively reviewed all fused SPECT/MR images and scored morphologic SLN parameters on a standardized case report form. Logistic regression and receiver-operating curves were used to model the parameters against the SLN status. RESULTS In 75 cases, 136 SLNs were eligible for analysis, of which 13 (9.6%) contained metastases (8 cases). Three parameters-short-axis diameter, long-axis diameter, and absence of sharp demarcation-significantly predicted metastatic invasion of nonenlarged SLNs, with quality-adjusted odds ratios of 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.99), 1.28 (95% CI, 1.03-1.57), and 7.55 (95% CI, 1.09-52.28), respectively. The area under the curve of the receiver-operating curves combining these parameters was 0.749 (95% CI, 0.569-0.930). Heterogeneous gadolinium enhancement, cortical thickness, round shape, or SLN size, compared with the nearest non-SLN, showed no association with metastases (P= 0.055-0.795). CONCLUSION In cervical cancer patients without enlarged lymph nodes, selective evaluation of only the SLNs-for size and absence of sharp demarcation-can be used to noninvasively assess the presence of metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob P Hoogendam
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Ronald P Zweemer
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Monique G G Hobbelink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division Image, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division Image, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - René H M Verheijen
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division Image, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Emaus MJ, Bakker MF, Peeters PHM, Loo CE, Mann RM, de Jong MDF, Bisschops RHC, Veltman J, Duvivier KM, Lobbes MBI, Pijnappel RM, Karssemeijer N, de Koning HJ, van den Bosch MAAJ, Monninkhof EM, Mali WPTM, Veldhuis WB, van Gils CH. MR Imaging as an Additional Screening Modality for the Detection of Breast Cancer in Women Aged 50–75 Years with Extremely Dense Breasts: The DENSE Trial Study Design. Radiology 2015; 277:527-37. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015141827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
|
25
|
van den Hoven AF, Lam MGEH, Jernigan S, van den Bosch MAAJ, Buckner GD. Innovation in catheter design for intra-arterial liver cancer treatments results in favorable particle-fluid dynamics. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2015; 34:74. [PMID: 26231929 PMCID: PMC4522078 DOI: 10.1186/s13046-015-0188-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2015] [Accepted: 07/06/2015] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Background Liver tumors are increasingly treated with radioembolization. Here, we present first evidence of catheter design effect on particle-fluid dynamics and downstream branch targeting during microsphere administrations. Materials and methods A total of 7 experiments were performed in a bench-top model of the hepatic arterial vasculature with recreated hemodynamics. Fluorescent microspheres and clinically used holmium microspheres were administered with a standard microcatheter (SMC) and an anti-reflux catheter (ARC) positioned at the same level along the longitudinal vessel axis. Catheter-related particle flow dynamics were analyzed by reviewing video recordings of UV-light illuminated fluorescent microsphere administrations. Downstream branch distribution was analyzed by quantification of collected microspheres in separate filters for two first-order branches. Mean deviation from a perfectly homogenous distribution (DHD) was used to compare the distribution homogeneity between catheter types. Results The SMC administrations demonstrated a random off-centered catheter position (in 71 % of experiments), and a laminar particle flow pattern with an inhomogeneous downstream branch distribution, dependent on catheter position and injection force. The ARC administrations demonstrated a fixed centro-luminal catheter position, and a turbulent particle flow pattern with a more consistent and homogenous downstream branch distribution. Quantitative analyses confirmed a significantly more homogeneous distribution with the ARC; the mean DHD was 40.85 % (IQR 22.76 %) for the SMC and 15.54 % (IQR 6.46 %) for the ARC (p = 0.047). Conclusion Catheter type has a significant impact on microsphere administrations in an in-vitro hepatic arterial model. A within-patient randomized controlled trial has been initiated to investigate clinical catheter-related effects during radioembolization treatment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13046-015-0188-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Shaphan Jernigan
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, 911 Oval Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695, USA.
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Gregory D Buckner
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, 911 Oval Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Hoogendam JP, Zweemer RP, Verkooijen HM, de Jong PA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Verheijen RHM, Veldhuis WB. No Value for Routine Chest Radiography in the Work-Up of Early Stage Cervical Cancer Patients. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0131899. [PMID: 26135733 PMCID: PMC4489900 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131899] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2015] [Accepted: 06/08/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim Evidence supporting the recommendation to include chest radiography in the work-up of all cervical cancer patients is limited. We investigated the diagnostic value of routine chest radiography in cervical cancer staging. Methods All consecutive cervical cancer patients who presented at our tertiary referral center in the Netherlands (January 2006 – September 2013), and for whom ≥6 months follow-up was available, were included. As part of the staging procedure, patients underwent a routine two-directional digital chest radiograph. Findings were compared to a composite reference standard consisting of all imaging studies and histology obtained during the 6 months following radiography. Results Of the 402 women who presented with cervical cancer, 288 (71.6%) underwent chest radiography and had ≥6 months follow-up. Early clinical stage (I/II) cervical cancer was present in 244/288 (84.7%) women, while 44 (15.3%) presented with advanced disease (stage III/IV). The chest radiograph of 1 woman – with advanced pre-radiograph stage (IVA) disease – showed findings consistent with pulmonary metastases. Radiographs of 7 other women – 4 early, 3 advanced stage disease – were suspicious for pulmonary metastases which was confirmed by additional imaging in only 1 woman (with pre-radiograph advanced stage (IIIB) disease) and excluded in 6 cases, including all women with early stage disease. In none of the 288 women were thoracic skeletal metastases identified on imaging or during 6 months follow up. Radiography was unremarkable in 76.4% of the study population, and showed findings unrelated to the cervical carcinoma in 21.2%. Conclusion Routine chest radiography was of no value for any of the early stage cervical cancer patients presenting at our tertiary center over a period of 7.7 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob P. Hoogendam
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Oncology Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- * E-mail:
| | - Ronald P. Zweemer
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Oncology Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Helena M. Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology, Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pim A. de Jong
- Department of Radiology, Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - René H. M. Verheijen
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Oncology Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter B. Veldhuis
- Department of Radiology, Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
van den Hoven AF, Prince JF, de Keizer B, Vonken EJPA, Bruijnen RCG, Verkooijen HM, Lam MGEH, van den Bosch MAAJ. Use of C-Arm Cone Beam CT During Hepatic Radioembolization: Protocol Optimization for Extrahepatic Shunting and Parenchymal Enhancement. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 39:64-73. [PMID: 26067803 PMCID: PMC4689758 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-015-1146-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2015] [Accepted: 05/02/2015] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To optimize a C-arm computed tomography (CT) protocol for radioembolization (RE), specifically for extrahepatic shunting and parenchymal enhancement. Materials and Methods A prospective development study was performed per IDEAL recommendations. A literature-based protocol was applied in patients with unresectable and chemorefractory liver malignancies undergoing an angiography before radioembolization. Contrast and scan settings were adjusted stepwise and repeatedly reviewed in a consensus meeting. Afterwards, two independent raters analyzed all scans. A third rater evaluated the SPECT/CT scans as a reference standard for extrahepatic shunting and lack of target segment perfusion. Results Fifty scans were obtained in 29 procedures. The first protocol, using a 6 s delay and 10 s scan, showed insufficient parenchymal enhancement. In the second protocol, the delay was determined by timing parenchymal enhancement on DSA power injection (median 8 s, range 4–10 s): enhancement improved, but breathing artifacts increased (from 0 to 27 %). Since the third protocol with a 5 s scan decremented subjective image quality, the second protocol was deemed optimal. Median CNR (range) was 1.7 (0.6–3.2), 2.2 (−1.4–4.0), and 2.1 (−0.3–3.0) for protocol 1, 2, and 3 (p = 0.80). Delineation of perfused segments was possible in 57, 73, and 44 % of scans (p = 0.13). In all C-arm CTs combined, the negative predictive value was 95 % for extrahepatic shunting and 83 % for lack of target segment perfusion. Conclusion An optimized C-arm CT protocol was developed that can be used to detect extrahepatic shunts and non-perfusion of target segments during RE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Bart de Keizer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Evert-Jan P A Vonken
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger C G Bruijnen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Helena M Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Braat AJAT, Smits MLJ, Braat MNGJA, van den Hoven AF, Prince JF, de Jong HWAM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. ⁹⁰Y Hepatic Radioembolization: An Update on Current Practice and Recent Developments. J Nucl Med 2015; 56:1079-87. [PMID: 25952741 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [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: 03/12/2015] [Accepted: 04/25/2015] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Radioembolization is an established treatment modality that has been subjected to many improvements over the last decade. Developments are occurring at a high pace, affecting patient selection and treatment. The aim of this review is therefore to provide an overview of current practice, with a focus on recent developments in the field of radioembolization. Several practical issues and recommendations in the application of radioembolization will be discussed, ranging from patient selection to treatment response and future applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur J A T Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten L J Smits
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Manon N G J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo W A M de Jong
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Huisman M, ter Haar G, Napoli A, Hananel A, Ghanouni P, Lövey G, Nijenhuis RJ, van den Bosch MAAJ, Rieke V, Majumdar S, Marchetti L, Pfeffer RM, Hurwitz MD. International consensus on use of focused ultrasound for painful bone metastases: Current status and future directions. Int J Hyperthermia 2015; 31:251-9. [PMID: 25677840 DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2014.995237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Focused ultrasound surgery (FUS), in particular magnetic resonance guided FUS (MRgFUS), is an emerging non-invasive thermal treatment modality in oncology that has recently proven to be effective for the palliation of metastatic bone pain. A consensus panel of internationally recognised experts in focused ultrasound critically reviewed all available data and developed consensus statements to increase awareness, accelerate the development, acceptance and adoption of FUS as a treatment for painful bone metastases and provide guidance towards broader application in oncology. In this review, evidence-based consensus statements are provided for (1) current treatment goals, (2) current indications, (3) technical considerations, (4) future directions including research priorities, and (5) economic and logistical considerations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Merel Huisman
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre , Utrecht , The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Prince JF, van Rooij R, Bol GH, de Jong HWAM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Safety of a Scout Dose Preceding Hepatic Radioembolization with 166Ho Microspheres. J Nucl Med 2015; 56:817-23. [PMID: 25931477 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.155564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [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: 02/06/2015] [Accepted: 04/15/2015] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED Before (166)Ho radioembolization, a small batch of the same type of microspheres is administered as a scout dose instead of the conventional (99m)Tc-macroaggregated albumin ((99m)Tc-MAA). The (166)Ho scout dose provides a more accurate and precise lung shunt assessment. However, in contrast to (99m)Tc-MAA, an unintended extrahepatic deposition of this β-emitting scout dose could inflict radiation damage, the extent of which we aimed to quantify in this study. METHODS All patients eligible for radioembolization in our institute between January 2011 and March 2014 were reviewed. Of the extrahepatic depositions of (99m)Tc-MAA on SPECT, the amount and volume were measured. These were used to calculate the theoretic absorbed dose in the case a (166)Ho scout dose had been used. The extrahepatic activity was measured as the sum of all voxels of the deposition. Volumes were measured using a threshold technique including all voxels from the maximum voxel intensity up to a certain percentage. The threshold needed to obtain the true volume was studied in a phantom study. RESULTS In the phantom study, a threshold of 40% was found to overestimate the volume, with the consequence of underestimating the absorbed dose. Of 160 patients, 32 patients (34 cases) of extrahepatic deposition were identified. The depositions contained a median of 1.3% (range, 0.1%-19.5%) of the administered activity in a median volume of 6.8 mL (range, 1.1-42 mL). The use of a scout dose of 250 MBq of (166)Ho microspheres in these cases would theoretically have resulted in a median absorbed dose of 6.0 Gy (range, 0.9-374 Gy). The dose exceeded a limit of 49 Gy (reported in 2013) in 2 of 34 cases (5.9%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-20.1%) or 2 of 160 (1.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1%-4.7%) of all patients. In these 2 patients with a large absorbed dose (112 and 374 Gy), the culprit vessel was identified in 1 case. CONCLUSION Extrahepatic deposition of a (166)Ho scout dose seems to be theoretically safe in most patients. Its safety in clinical practice is being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rob van Rooij
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gijsbert H Bol
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo W A M de Jong
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Barentsz MW, Taviani V, Chang JM, Ikeda DM, Miyake KK, Banerjee S, van den Bosch MAAJ, Hargreaves BA, Daniel BL. Assessment of tumor morphology on diffusion-weighted (DWI) breast MRI: Diagnostic value of reduced field of view DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42:1656-65. [PMID: 25914178 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24929] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [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: 10/08/2014] [Accepted: 04/06/2015] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic value of conventional, bilateral diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and high-resolution targeted DWI of known breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-one consecutive patients with known breast cancer or suspicious breast lesions were scanned with the conventional bilateral DWI technique, a high-resolution, reduced field of view (rFOV) DWI technique, and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) (3.0 T). We compared bilateral DWI and rFOV DWI quantitatively by measuring the lesions' apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. For qualitative comparison, three dedicated breast radiologists scored image quality and performed lesion interpretation. RESULTS In a phantom, ADC values were in good agreement with the reference values. Twenty-one patients (30 lesions: 14 invasive carcinomas, 10 benign lesions [of which 5 cysts], 3 high-risk, and 3 in situ carcinomas) were included. Cysts and high-risk lesions were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Quantitatively, both bilateral and rFOV DWI measured lower ADC values in invasive tumors than other lesions. In vivo, rFOV DWI gave lower ADC values than bilateral DWI (1.11 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s vs. 1.24 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s, P = 0.002). Regions of interest (ROIs) were comparable in size between the two techniques (2.90 vs. 2.13 cm(2) , P = 0.721). Qualitatively, all three radiologists scored sharpness of rFOV DWI images as significantly higher than bilateral DWI (P ≤ 0.002). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed a higher area under the curve (AUC) in BI-RADS classification for rFOV DWI compared to bilateral DWI (0.71 to 0.93 vs. 0.61 to 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSION Tumor morphology can be assessed in more detail with high-resolution DWI (rFOV) than with standard bilateral DWI by providing significantly sharper images.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maarten W Barentsz
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Valentina Taviani
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Jung M Chang
- Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Debra M Ikeda
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Kanae K Miyake
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
| | | | | | | | - Bruce L Daniel
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Hoogendam JP, Veldhuis WB, Hobbelink MGG, Verheijen RHM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Zweemer RP. 99mTc SPECT/CT Versus Planar Lymphoscintigraphy for Preoperative Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. J Nucl Med 2015; 56:675-80. [PMID: 25858041 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.152439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [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: 12/02/2014] [Accepted: 03/16/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED We aimed to compare SPECT/CT and lymphoscintigraphy on overall and bilateral sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in cervical cancer patients. METHODS A systematic search was performed on August 1, 2014, in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane library. The syntax was based on synonyms of the terms cervical cancer, SPECT/CT, and lymphoscintigraphy. Retrieved articles were screened on their title/abstract and considered eligible when an SLN procedure was performed using both imaging modalities and if detection results were reported. Two independent reviewers assessed all included studies on methodologic quality using QUADAS-2. Studies were pooled on their odds ratios (ORs) with a random-effects model. RESULTS The search yielded 962 unique articles, of which 8 were ultimately included. The studies were recent retrospective or prospective cohort studies of limited size (n = 7-51) but sufficient methodologic quality. The median overall detection (≥1 SLN in a patient) was 98.6% for SPECT/CT (range, 92.2%-100.0%) and 85.3% for lymphoscintigraphy (range, 70.0%-100.0%). This corresponded to a pooled overall SLN detection OR of 2.5 (95% CI, 1.2-5.3) in favor of SPECT/CT. The reported median bilateral detection (≥1 SLN in each hemipelvis) was 69.0% for SPECT/CT (range, 62.7%-79.3%) and 66.7% for lymphoscintigraphy (range, 56.9%-75.8%), yielding a pooled OR of 1.2 (95% CI, 0.7-2.1). No significant difference in the number of visualized SLNs was observed at a pooled ratio of 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9-1.6). CONCLUSION In cervical cancer patients, preoperative SLN imaging with SPECT/CT results in superior overall SLN detection in comparison with planar lymphoscintigraphy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob P Hoogendam
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Monique G G Hobbelink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - René H M Verheijen
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | | | - Ronald P Zweemer
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Huisman M, van der Velden JM, van Vulpen M, van den Bosch MAAJ, Chow E, Öner FC, Yee A, Verkooijen HM, Verlaan JJ. Spinal instability as defined by the spinal instability neoplastic score is associated with radiotherapy failure in metastatic spinal disease. Spine J 2014; 14:2835-40. [PMID: 24704681 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2013] [Revised: 02/20/2014] [Accepted: 03/26/2014] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT Although radiotherapy is effective in achieving pain relief in most patients, it is not completely understood why some patients respond well to radiotherapy and others do not. Our hypothesis was that metastatic bone pain, if predominantly caused by mechanical instability of the spine, responds less well to radiotherapy than metastatic bone pain caused by local tumor activity. Recently, the spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) was proposed as a standardized referral tool for nonspine specialists to facilitate early diagnosis of spinal instability. PURPOSE To investigate the association between spinal instability as defined by the SINS and response to radiotherapy in patients with spinal metastases. STUDY DESIGN A retrospectively matched case-control study in an academic tertiary referral center, conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. PATIENT SAMPLE Thirty-eight patients with spinal metastases who were retreated after initial palliative radiotherapy from January 2009 to December 2010 were matched to 76 control patients who were not retreated. OUTCOME MEASURES Radiotherapy failure as defined by retreatment (radiotherapy, surgery, and conservative) after palliative radiotherapy for spinal metastases. METHODS Radiotherapy planning computed tomography scans were scored by a blinded spine surgeon according to the SINS criteria. The association between SINS and radiotherapy failure was estimated by univariate and multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Median SINS was 10 (range 4-16) for cases and 7 (range 1-16) for controls. The SINS was significantly and independently associated with radiotherapy failure (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.5; p=.01). CONCLUSIONS This study shows that a higher spinal instability score increases the risk of radiotherapy failure in patients with spinal metastases, independent of performance status, primary tumor, and symptoms. These results may support the hypothesis that metastatic spinal bone pain, predominantly caused by mechanical instability, responds less well to radiotherapy than pain mainly resulting from local tumor activity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Merel Huisman
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Joanne M van der Velden
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marco van Vulpen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Edward Chow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - F Cumhur Öner
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Albert Yee
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Helena M Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jorrit-Jan Verlaan
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Oerlemans C, Seevinck PR, Smits ML, Hennink WE, Bakker CJG, van den Bosch MAAJ, Nijsen JFW. Holmium-lipiodol-alginate microspheres for fluoroscopy-guided embolotherapy and multimodality imaging. Int J Pharm 2014; 482:47-53. [PMID: 25448561 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.11.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [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: 05/29/2014] [Revised: 10/30/2014] [Accepted: 11/04/2014] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Embolotherapy is a minimally invasive transcatheter technique aiming at reduction or complete obstruction of the blood flow by infusion of micro-sized particles in order to induce tumor regression. A major drawback of the current commercially available and clinically used microspheres is that they cannot be detected in vivo with medical imaging techniques, impeding intra- and post-procedural feedback. It can be expected that real-time monitoring of microsphere infusion and post-procedural imaging will result in better predictability and higher efficacy of the treatment. In this study, a novel microsphere formulation has been developed that can be visualized with fluoroscopy, X-ray computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The microspheres were prepared with the JetCutter technique and consist of alginate (matrix-forming polymer), holmium (cross-linking and MRI contrast agent), lipiodol (radiopaque contrast agent) and Pluronic F-68 (surfactant). The mean size (±SEM) of the hydrated holmium-lipiodol-alginate microspheres (Ho-lip-ams) was 570±12 μm with a holmium content of 0.38±0.01% (w/w). Stability studies showed that the microspheres remained intact during incubation for two weeks in fetal calf serum (FCS) at 37 °C. The inclusion of lipiodol in the microspheres rendered excellent visualization capabilities for fluoroscopy and CT, whereas the holmium ions, which keep the alginate network together, also allow MR imaging. In this study it was shown that single sphere detection was possible by fluoroscopy, CT and MRI. The Ho-lip-ams were visualized in real-time, during infusion in a porcine kidney using fluoroscopy, and post-procedural, the deposition of the microspheres was examined with fluoroscopy, (cone beam rotational) CT and MRI. The different imaging modalities showed similar deposition patterns of the microspheres within the organ. The combination of intra-procedural visualization, multimodality imaging for patient follow-up and the possibility of quantification offers a new and promising method for more safe, efficient and successful embolization treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Oerlemans
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Peter R Seevinck
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten L Smits
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Wim E Hennink
- Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Chris J G Bakker
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - J Frank W Nijsen
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Prince JF, Smits MLJ, Krijger GC, Zonnenberg BA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Nijsen JFW, Lam MGEH. Radiation emission from patients treated with holmium-166 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014; 25:1956-1963.e1. [PMID: 25311966 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2014] [Revised: 09/04/2014] [Accepted: 09/04/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the radiation exposure to individuals coming from patients after treatment with holmium-166 ((166)Ho) microspheres. MATERIALS AND METHODS Holmium-166 radioembolization (RE) with escalating whole-liver doses of 20 Gy, 40 Gy, 60 Gy, and 80 Gy was administered to 15 patients. Exposure rates (μSv/h) from patients were measured at 1.0 m distance from a lateral and frontal position at 0, 3, 6, 24, and 48 hours after infusion. The total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to a maximally exposed contact was calculated in accordance with guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Results were extrapolated to a whole-liver dose of 60 Gy used in future treatments. RESULTS The median exposure rate at discharge, 48 hours after infusion, measured from a lateral position was 26 μSv/h (range, 7-45 μSv/h). Extrapolated to a whole-liver dose of 60 Gy, none of the exposure rates for the NRC contact scenario, at any time, frontal or lateral, would lead to a TEDE > 5 mSv; all patients may be released directly after treatment. Release after 6 hours is possible without contact restrictions for patients who received up to 7 GBq. CONCLUSIONS The TEDE to a contact of patients treated with (166)Ho RE would not exceed the NRC limit of 5 mSv. Contact restrictions 6 hours after treatment are unnecessary for infused activities < 7 GBq.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jip F Prince
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands..
| | - Maarten L J Smits
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gerard C Krijger
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Bernard A Zonnenberg
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maurice A A J van den Bosch
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes F W Nijsen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Elschot M, Smits MLJ, Nijsen JFW, Lam MGEH, Zonnenberg BA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Viergever MA, de Jong HWAM. Quantitative Monte Carlo-based holmium-166 SPECT reconstruction. Med Phys 2014; 40:112502. [PMID: 24320461 DOI: 10.1118/1.4823788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Quantitative imaging of the radionuclide distribution is of increasing interest for microsphere radioembolization (RE) of liver malignancies, to aid treatment planning and dosimetry. For this purpose, holmium-166 ((166)Ho) microspheres have been developed, which can be visualized with a gamma camera. The objective of this work is to develop and evaluate a new reconstruction method for quantitative (166)Ho SPECT, including Monte Carlo-based modeling of photon contributions from the full energy spectrum. METHODS A fast Monte Carlo (MC) simulator was developed for simulation of (166)Ho projection images and incorporated in a statistical reconstruction algorithm (SPECT-fMC). Photon scatter and attenuation for all photons sampled from the full (166)Ho energy spectrum were modeled during reconstruction by Monte Carlo simulations. The energy- and distance-dependent collimator-detector response was modeled using precalculated convolution kernels. Phantom experiments were performed to quantitatively evaluate image contrast, image noise, count errors, and activity recovery coefficients (ARCs) of SPECT-fMC in comparison with those of an energy window-based method for correction of down-scattered high-energy photons (SPECT-DSW) and a previously presented hybrid method that combines MC simulation of photopeak scatter with energy window-based estimation of down-scattered high-energy contributions (SPECT-ppMC+DSW). Additionally, the impact of SPECT-fMC on whole-body recovered activities (A(est)) and estimated radiation absorbed doses was evaluated using clinical SPECT data of six (166)Ho RE patients. RESULTS At the same noise level, SPECT-fMC images showed substantially higher contrast than SPECT-DSW and SPECT-ppMC+DSW in spheres ≥ 17 mm in diameter. The count error was reduced from 29% (SPECT-DSW) and 25% (SPECT-ppMC+DSW) to 12% (SPECT-fMC). ARCs in five spherical volumes of 1.96-106.21 ml were improved from 32%-63% (SPECT-DSW) and 50%-80% (SPECT-ppMC+DSW) to 76%-103% (SPECT-fMC). Furthermore, SPECT-fMC recovered whole-body activities were most accurate (A(est) = 1.06 × A - 5.90 MBq, R(2) = 0.97) and SPECT-fMC tumor absorbed doses were significantly higher than with SPECT-DSW (p = 0.031) and SPECT-ppMC+DSW (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS The quantitative accuracy of (166)Ho SPECT is improved by Monte Carlo-based modeling of the image degrading factors. Consequently, the proposed reconstruction method enables accurate estimation of the radiation absorbed dose in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mattijs Elschot
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Braat AJAT, Huijbregts JE, Molenaar IQ, Borel Rinkes IHM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Hepatic radioembolization as a bridge to liver surgery. Front Oncol 2014; 4:199. [PMID: 25126539 PMCID: PMC4115667 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2014] [Accepted: 07/15/2014] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Treatment of oncologic disease has improved significantly in the last decades and in the future a vast majority of cancer types will continue to increase worldwide. As a result, many patients are confronted with primary liver cancers or metastatic liver disease. Surgery in liver malignancies has steeply improved and curative resections are applicable in wider settings, leading to a prolonged survival. Simultaneously, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and liver transplantation (LTx) have been applied more commonly in oncologic settings with improving results. To minimize adverse events in treatments of liver malignancies, locoregional minimal invasive treatments have made their appearance in this field, in which radioembolization (RE) has shown promising results in recent years with few adverse events and high response rates. We discuss several other applications of RE for oncologic patients, other than its use in the palliative setting, whether or not combined with other treatments. This review is focused on the role of RE in acquiring patient eligibility for radical treatments, like surgery, RFA, and LTx. Inducing significant tumor reduction can downstage patients for resection or, through attaining stable disease, patients can stay on the LTx waiting list. Hereby, RE could make a difference between curative of palliative intent in oncologic patient management. Prior to surgery, the future remnant liver volume might be inadequate in some patients. In these patients, forming an adequate liver reserve through RE leads to prolonged survival without risking post-operative liver failure and minimizing tumor progression while inducing hypertrophy. In order to optimize results, developments in procedures surrounding RE are equally important. Predicting the remaining liver function after radical treatment and finding the right balance between maximum tumor irradiation and minimizing the chance of inducing radiation-related complications are still challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur J A T Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , Netherlands
| | - Julia E Huijbregts
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , Netherlands
| | - I Quintus Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , Netherlands
| | | | | | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Schalkx HJ, van Stralen M, Coenegrachts K, van den Bosch MAAJ, van Kessel CS, van Hillegersberg R, van Erpecum KJ, Verkooijen HM, Pluim JPW, Veldhuis WB, van Leeuwen MS. Liver perfusion in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI): comparison of enhancement in Gd-BT-DO3A and Gd-EOB-DTPA in normal liver parenchyma. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:2146-56. [DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3275-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2014] [Revised: 05/26/2014] [Accepted: 06/03/2014] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
|
39
|
Ikink ME, Voogt MJ, van den Bosch MAAJ, Nijenhuis RJ, Keserci B, Kim YS, Vincken KL, Bartels LW. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging using different b-value combinations for the evaluation of treatment results after volumetric MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:2118-27. [PMID: 24962829 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3274-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2013] [Revised: 05/20/2014] [Accepted: 06/03/2014] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping using different b-value combinations for treatment evaluation after magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) of uterine fibroids. METHODS Fifty-six patients with 67 uterine fibroids were treated with volumetric MR-HIFU. Pre-treatment and post-treatment images were obtained using contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI (CE-T1WI) and DWI using b = 0, 200, 400, 600, 800 s/mm(2). ADC maps were generated using subsets of b-values to investigate the effects of tissue ablation on water diffusion and perfusion in fibroids treated with MR-HIFU. Four combinations of b-values were used: (1) all b-values; (2) b = 0, 200 s/mm(2); (3) b = 400, 600, 800 s/mm(2); and (4) b = 0, 800 s/mm(2). RESULTS Using the lowest b-values (0 and 200 s/mm(2)), the mean ADC value in the ablated tissue reduced significantly (p < 0.001) compared with baseline. Calculating the ADC value with the highest b-values (400, 600, 800 s/mm(2)), the ADC increased significantly (p < 0.001) post-treatment. ADC maps calculated with the lowest b-values resulted in the best visual agreement of non-perfused fibroid tissue detected on CE images. Other b-value combinations and normal myometrium showed no difference in ADC after MR-HIFU treatment. CONCLUSIONS A decrease in contrast agent uptake within the ablated region on CE-T1WI was correlated to a significantly decreased ADC when b = 0 and 200 s/mm(2) were used. KEY POINTS DWI could be useful for treatment evaluation after MR-HIFU of uterine fibroids. The ADC in fibroid tissue is influenced by the choice of b- values. Low b-values seem the best choice to emphasise perfusion effects after MR-HIFU.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marlijne E Ikink
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Knuttel FM, Menezes GLG, van den Bosch MAAJ, Gilhuijs KGA, Peters NHGM. Current clinical indications for magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. J Surg Oncol 2014; 110:26-31. [PMID: 24861355 DOI: 10.1002/jso.23655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [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: 01/28/2014] [Accepted: 04/24/2014] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
MRI is increasingly used in breast cancer patients. MRI has a high sensitivity compared to mammography and ultrasound. The specificity is moderate leading to an increased risk of false positive findings. Currently, a beneficial effect of breast MRI has been established in some patient groups and is debated in the general breast cancer population. The diagnostic ability of MRI and its role in various groups of breast cancer patients are discussed in this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Floor M Knuttel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Elschot M, Nijsen JFW, Lam MGEH, Smits MLJ, Prince JF, Viergever MA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Zonnenberg BA, de Jong HWAM. (⁹⁹m)Tc-MAA overestimates the absorbed dose to the lungs in radioembolization: a quantitative evaluation in patients treated with ¹⁶⁶Ho-microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 41:1965-75. [PMID: 24819055 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-014-2784-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2013] [Accepted: 04/15/2014] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation pneumonitis is a rare but serious complication of radioembolic therapy of liver tumours. Estimation of the mean absorbed dose to the lungs based on pretreatment diagnostic (99m)Tc-macroaggregated albumin ((99m)Tc-MAA) imaging should prevent this, with administered activities adjusted accordingly. The accuracy of (99m)Tc-MAA-based lung absorbed dose estimates was evaluated and compared to absorbed dose estimates based on pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere imaging and to the actual lung absorbed doses after (166)Ho radioembolization. METHODS This prospective clinical study included 14 patients with chemorefractory, unresectable liver metastases treated with (166)Ho radioembolization. (99m)Tc-MAA-based and (166)Ho-microsphere-based estimation of lung absorbed doses was performed on pretreatment diagnostic planar scintigraphic and SPECT/CT images. The clinical analysis was preceded by an anthropomorphic torso phantom study with simulated lung shunt fractions of 0 to 30 % to determine the accuracy of the image-based lung absorbed dose estimates after (166)Ho radioembolization. RESULTS In the phantom study, (166)Ho SPECT/CT-based lung absorbed dose estimates were more accurate (absolute error range 0.1 to -4.4 Gy) than (166)Ho planar scintigraphy-based lung absorbed dose estimates (absolute error range 9.5 to 12.1 Gy). Clinically, the actual median lung absorbed dose was 0.02 Gy (range 0.0 to 0.7 Gy) based on posttreatment (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging. Lung absorbed doses estimated on the basis of pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging (median 0.02 Gy, range 0.0 to 0.4 Gy) were significantly better predictors of the actual lung absorbed doses than doses estimated on the basis of (166)Ho-microsphere planar scintigraphy (median 10.4 Gy, range 4.0 to 17.3 Gy; p < 0.001), (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT imaging (median 2.5 Gy, range 1.2 to 12.3 Gy; p < 0.001), and (99m)Tc-MAA planar scintigraphy (median 5.5 Gy, range 2.3 to 18.2 Gy; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION In clinical practice, lung absorbed doses are significantly overestimated by pretreatment diagnostic (99m)Tc-MAA imaging. Pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging accurately predicts lung absorbed doses after (166)Ho radioembolization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mattijs Elschot
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
de Leeuw H, Stehouwer BL, Bakker CJG, Klomp DWJ, van Diest PJ, Luijten PR, Seevinck PR, van den Bosch MAAJ, Viergever MA, Veldhuis WB. Detecting breast microcalcifications with high-field MRI. NMR Biomed 2014; 27:539-546. [PMID: 24535752 DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2013] [Revised: 01/10/2014] [Accepted: 01/10/2014] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to detect microcalcifications in human whole breast specimens using high-field MRI. Four mastectomy specimens, obtained with approval of the institutional review board, were subjected to gradient-echo MRI acquisitions on a high-field MR scanner. The phase derivative was used to detect microcalcifications. The echo time and imaging resolution were varied to study the sensitivity of the proposed method. Computed tomography images of the mastectomy specimens and prior acquired mammography images were used to validate the results. A template matching algorithm was designed to detect microcalcifications automatically. The three spatial derivatives of the signal phase surrounding a field-perturbing object allowed three-dimensional localization, as well as the discrimination of diamagnetic field-perturbing objects, such as calcifications, and paramagnetic field-perturbing structures, e.g. blood. A longer echo time enabled smaller disturbances to be detected, but also resulted in shading as a result of other field-disturbing materials. A higher imaging resolution increased the detection sensitivity. Microcalcifications in a linear branching configuration that spanned over 8 mm in length were detected. After manual correction, the automatic detection tool identified up to 18 microcalcifications within the samples, which was in close agreement with the number of microcalcifications found on previously acquired in vivo mammography images. Microcalcifications can be detected by MRI in human whole breast specimens by the application of phase derivative imaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hendrik de Leeuw
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
van den Hoven AF, Smits MLJ, de Keizer B, van Leeuwen MS, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Identifying aberrant hepatic arteries prior to intra-arterial radioembolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2014; 37:1482-93. [PMID: 24469409 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-014-0845-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [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] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2013] [Accepted: 12/21/2013] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Failing to identify aberrant hepatic arteries before radioembolization (RE) may compromise its treatment efficacy due to inadequate biodistribution of radioactive microspheres. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how often aberrant hepatic arteries were identified correctly in clinical practice, with computed tomography (CT), and during angiography in patients with liver tumors who received a workup for RE. METHODS The presence and vascularization pattern of aberrant (i.e., accessory and replaced) hepatic arteries was assessed on triphasic liver CT in 110 patients. Subsequently, radiological reports on CT and angiographic procedures were reviewed to determine whether aberrant hepatic arteries were identified correctly in clinical practice. The intrahepatic biodistribution of (99m)Tc-MAA and radioactive microspheres was assessed on SPECT/CT and PET/CT in all patients with unidentified aberrant hepatic arteries. RESULTS Thirty-seven of 110 patients (34%) had aberrant hepatic arteries. In 18 of 37 (49%) patients, the aberrant hepatic arteries were correctly identified on CT and in 32 of 37 (86%) during angiography. Aberrant right hepatic arteries were identified more frequently than aberrant left hepatic arteries on CT (54 vs. 44%) and during angiography (100 vs. 69%, p = 0.007). In five patients (14%), an aberrant left hepatic artery remained unidentified, resulting in a lack of (99m)Tc-MAA and (90)Y activity in the segmental territory of the unidentified aberrant hepatic arteries. CONCLUSIONS Aberrant left hepatic arteries were the most common unidentified aberrant hepatic arteries, resulting in incomplete radiation coverage. We formulated a practical approach to identify aberrant hepatic arteries correctly before RE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room E.01.132, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
van den Hoven AF, Smits MLJ, Rosenbaum CENM, Verkooijen HM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. The effect of intra-arterial angiotensin II on the hepatic tumor to non-tumor blood flow ratio for radioembolization: a systematic review. PLoS One 2014; 9:e86394. [PMID: 24466071 PMCID: PMC3895031 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2013] [Accepted: 12/06/2013] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Treatment efficacy of intra-arterial radioembolization for liver tumors depends on the selective targeting of tumorous tissue. Recent investigations have demonstrated that tumors may receive inadequate doses of radioactivity after radioembolization, due to unfavorable tumor to non-tumor (T/N) uptake ratios of radioactive microspheres. Hepatic arterial infusion of the vasoconstrictor angiotensin II (AT-II) is reported to increase the T/N blood flow ratio. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the effect of hepatic arterial AT-II on T/N blood flow ratio in patients with hepatic malignancies, and determine its clinical value for radioembolization. METHODS This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A structured search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Only studies that presented data on T/N ratios before and after infusion of AT-II into the hepatic artery, in human patients with hepatic malignancies, were selected. Median T/N ratios before, during and after AT-II infusion, and the median T/N ratio improvement factor were extracted from the selected articles. All data on systemic blood pressure measurements and clinical symptoms were also extracted. RESULTS The search identified 524 titles of which 5 studies, including a total of 71 patients were considered relevant. Median T/N ratios before infusion of AT-II ranged from 0.4 to 3.4. All studies observed a substantial improvement of the T/N ratio after AT-II infusion, with median improvement factors ranging from 1.8 to 3.1. A transitory increase of systemic blood pressure was observed during AT-II infusion. CONCLUSIONS Infusion of AT-II into the hepatic artery leads to an increase of the tumor to non-tumor blood flow ratio, as measured by T/N uptake ratios. Clinical trials are warranted to assess safety aspects, optimal administration strategy and impact on treatment efficacy during radioembolization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andor F. van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten L. J. Smits
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Helena M. Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marnix G. E. H. Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Baron P, Deckers R, de Greef M, Merckel LG, Bakker CJG, Bouwman JG, Bleys RLAW, van den Bosch MAAJ, Bartels LW. Correction of proton resonance frequency shift MR-thermometry errors caused by heat-induced magnetic susceptibility changes during high intensity focused ultrasound ablations in tissues containing fat. Magn Reson Med 2013; 72:1580-9. [PMID: 24347129 DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [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: 03/13/2013] [Revised: 11/07/2013] [Accepted: 11/08/2013] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE In this study, we aim to demonstrate the sensitivity of proton resonance frequency shift (PRFS) -based thermometry to heat-induced magnetic susceptibility changes and to present and evaluate a model-based correction procedure. THEORY AND METHODS To demonstrate the expected temperature effect, field disturbances during high intensity focused ultrasound sonications were monitored in breast fat samples with a three-dimensional (3D) gradient echo sequence. To evaluate the correction procedure, the interface of tissue-mimicking ethylene glycol gel and fat was sonicated. During sonication, the temperature was monitored with a 2D dual flip angle multi-echo gradient echo sequence, allowing for PRFS-based relative and referenced temperature measurements in the gel and T1 -based temperature measurements in fat. The PRFS-based measurement in the gel was corrected by minimizing the discrepancy between the observed 2D temperature profile and the profile predicted by a 3D thermal model. RESULTS The HIFU sonications of breast fat resulted in a magnetic field disturbance which completely disappeared after cooling. For the correction method, the 5th to 95th percentile interval of the PRFS-thermometry error in the gel decreased from 3.8°C before correction to 2.0-2.3°C after correction. CONCLUSION This study has shown the effects of magnetic susceptibility changes induced by heating of breast fatty tissue samples. The resultant errors can be reduced by the use of a model-based correction procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Baron
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Smits MLJ, Elschot M, van den Bosch MAAJ, van de Maat GH, van het Schip AD, Zonnenberg BA, Seevinck PR, Verkooijen HM, Bakker CJ, de Jong HWAM, Lam MGEH, Nijsen JFW. In vivo dosimetry based on SPECT and MR imaging of 166Ho-microspheres for treatment of liver malignancies. J Nucl Med 2013; 54:2093-100. [PMID: 24136931 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.119768] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
UNLABELLED (166)Ho-poly(l-lactic acid) microspheres allow for quantitative imaging with MR imaging or SPECT for microsphere biodistribution assessment after radioembolization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate SPECT- and MR imaging-based dosimetry in the first patients treated with (166)Ho radioembolization. METHODS Fifteen patients with unresectable, chemorefractory liver metastases of any origin were enrolled in this phase 1 study and were treated with (166)Ho radioembolization according to a dose escalation protocol (20-80 Gy). The contours of all liver segments and all discernible tumors were manually delineated on T2-weighted posttreatment MR images and registered to the posttreatment SPECT images (n = 9) or SPECT/CT images (n = 6) and MR imaging-based R2* maps (n = 14). Dosimetry was based on SPECT (n = 15) and MR imaging (n = 9) for all volumes of interest, tumor-to-nontumor (T/N) activity concentration ratios were calculated, and correlation and agreement of MR imaging- and SPECT-based measurements were evaluated. RESULTS The median overall T/N ratio was 1.4 based on SPECT (range, 0.9-2.8) and 1.4 based on MR imaging (range, 1.1-3.1). In 6 of 15 patients (40%), all tumors had received an activity concentration equal to or higher than the normal liver (T/N ratio ≥ 1). Analysis of SPECT and MR imaging measurements for dose to liver segments yielded a high correlation (R(2) = 0.91) and a moderate agreement (mean bias, 3.7 Gy; 95% limits of agreement, -11.2 to 18.7). CONCLUSION With the use of (166)Ho-microspheres, in vivo dosimetry is feasible on the basis of both SPECT and MR imaging, which enables personalized treatment by selective targeting of inadequately treated tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maarten L J Smits
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Diepstraten SCE, van de Ven SMWY, Pijnappel RM, Peeters PHM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Verkooijen HM, Elias SG. Development and evaluation of a prediction model for underestimated invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ at stereotactic large core needle biopsy. PLoS One 2013; 8:e77826. [PMID: 24147085 PMCID: PMC3795649 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2013] [Accepted: 09/11/2013] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to develop a multivariable model for prediction of underestimated invasiveness in women with ductal carcinoma in situ at stereotactic large core needle biopsy, that can be used to select patients for sentinel node biopsy at primary surgery. METHODS From the literature, we selected potential preoperative predictors of underestimated invasive breast cancer. Data of patients with nonpalpable breast lesions who were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ at stereotactic large core needle biopsy, drawn from the prospective COBRA (Core Biopsy after RAdiological localization) and COBRA2000 cohort studies, were used to fit the multivariable model and assess its overall performance, discrimination, and calibration. RESULTS 348 women with large core needle biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ were available for analysis. In 100 (28.7%) patients invasive carcinoma was found at subsequent surgery. Nine predictors were included in the model. In the multivariable analysis, the predictors with the strongest association were lesion size (OR 1.12 per cm, 95% CI 0.98-1.28), number of cores retrieved at biopsy (OR per core 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.01), presence of lobular cancerization (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.25-26.77), and microinvasion (OR 3.75, 95% CI 1.42-9.87). The overall performance of the multivariable model was poor with an explained variation of 9% (Nagelkerke's R(2)), mediocre discrimination with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.73), and fairly good calibration. CONCLUSION The evaluation of our multivariable prediction model in a large, clinically representative study population proves that routine clinical and pathological variables are not suitable to select patients with large core needle biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ for sentinel node biopsy during primary surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ruud M. Pijnappel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Petra H. M. Peeters
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Helena M. Verkooijen
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd G. Elias
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Diepstraten SCE, Sever AR, Buckens CFM, Veldhuis WB, van Dalen T, van den Bosch MAAJ, Mali WPTM, Verkooijen HM. Value of preoperative ultrasound-guided axillary lymph node biopsy for preventing completion axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 21:51-9. [PMID: 24008555 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3229-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 128] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2013] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the utility of preoperative axillary ultrasound combined with US-guided lymph node biopsy if indicated (AUS ± biopsy), in terms of staging the axilla and preventing two-step axillary surgery in the form of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) followed by completion axillary lymph node (ALN) dissection. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases for studies that addressed preoperative assessment of ALN status by AUS ± biopsy. A pooled estimate was calculated for the false-negative rate (FNR) of AUS ± biopsy (defined as the proportion of women with a negative AUS ± biopsy result subsequently proven to have a positive axilla) and sensitivity (defined as the proportion of women with a positive AUS ± biopsy result among all women with a tumor positive axilla). RESULTS The pooled FNR was 25 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 24-27) and the pooled sensitivity was 50 % (95 % CI = 43-57). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies for both FNR (I (2) = 69.42) and sensitivity (I (2) = 93.25), which was not explained by between-study differences in biopsy technique, mean/median tumor size, biopsy indication, or study design. Sensitivity was increased in studies with a high prevalence of ALN metastases. CONCLUSIONS Preoperative axillary ultrasound-guided biopsy is a useful step in the process of axillary staging. Approximately 50 % of women with axillary involvement can be identified preoperatively. Still, one in four women with an ultrasound-guided biopsy-"proven" negative axilla has a positive SNB.
Collapse
|
49
|
Stehouwer BL, Klomp DWJ, van den Bosch MAAJ, Korteweg MA, Gilhuijs KGA, Witkamp AJ, van Diest PJ, Houwert KAF, van der Kemp WJM, Luijten PR, Mali WPTM, Veldhuis WB. Dynamic contrast-enhanced and ultra-high-resolution breast MRI at 7.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:2961-8. [PMID: 23982289 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2985-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2013] [Revised: 06/26/2013] [Accepted: 07/14/2013] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of 7-T contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious masses. METHODS Twenty patients with 23 suspicious breast masses on conventional imaging (mean size 13 mm, range 5-27 mm) were examined at 7 T. The MRI protocol included a dynamic series with injection of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobutrol (seven consecutive 3D T1-weighted gradient echo sequences, resolution 1 × 1 × 2 mm(3), temporal resolution 63 s) and ultra-high-resolution imaging (T1-weighted 3D gradient echo sequence, resolution 0.45 × 0.57 × 0.45 mm(3)). Two observers (R1 and R2) independently judged the examinations on image quality and classified lesions according to BI-RADS. The added value of ultra-high-resolution imaging was assessed. RESULTS The image quality was deemed excellent in 1 and 0, good in 10 and 12, sufficient in 8 and 8, and insufficient in 1 and 0 for R1 and R2 respectively. Twenty of the 23 lesions were identified at 7-T MRI by both observers. All histopathologically proven malignant lesions (n = 19) were identified and classified as BI-RADS-MRI 4 or 5. Ultra-high-resolution imaging increased reader confidence in 88 % (R1) and 59 % (R2) of acquisitions. CONCLUSION The study shows the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced 7-T breast MRI, where all malignant mass lesions were identified by two observers. KEY POINTS • Magnetic resonance imaging is important in the evaluation of breast cancer. • Recently, 7-T MRI has become available. • The 7-T dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI is feasible in patients. • The 7-T breast examinations are amenable to evaluation according to BI-RADS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bertine L Stehouwer
- Department of Radiology; E01.132, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Prince JF, Smits MLJ, van Herwaarden JA, Arntz MJ, Vonken EJPA, van den Bosch MAAJ, de Borst GJ. Endovascular treatment of internal iliac artery stenosis in patients with buttock claudication. PLoS One 2013; 8:e73331. [PMID: 23951349 PMCID: PMC3738523 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2013] [Accepted: 07/23/2013] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim To assess the technical feasibility and clinical outcome of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with and without stent placement for treatment of buttock claudication caused by internal iliac artery (IIA) stenosis. Methods Between September 2001 and July 2011, thirty-four patients with buttock claudication underwent endovascular treatment. After angiographic lesion evaluation PTA with or without stent placement was performed. Technical success was recorded. Clinical outcome post-treatment was assessed at three months post-intervention and was classified as: 1) complete relief of symptoms, 2) partial relief, or 3) no relief of symptoms. Complications during follow-up were recorded. Results Forty-four lesions in 34 symptomatic patients were treated with PTA. Eight lesions were treated with additional stent placement. Technical success was achieved in 40/44 lesions (91%). Three procedure-related minor complications occurred, i.e. asymptomatic conservatively treated intimal dissections. After a median of 2.9 months, patients experienced no relief of symptoms in 7/34 cases (21%), partial relief in 14/34 cases (41%), and complete relief in 13/34 cases (38%). Six patients required a reintervention during follow-up. Conclusion Endovascular treatment of IIA stenosis has a high technical success rate and a low complication rate. Complete or partial relief of symptoms is achieved in the majority (79%) of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jip F. Prince
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Maarten L. J. Smits
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Mark J. Arntz
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Gert Jan de Borst
- Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|