Analysis of the Measured FDG Uptake from the First-in-Human Clinical Trial of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The RefleXion X1 system is a novel linear accelerator equipped with dual 90° PET arcs incorporated into its architecture to capture emissions from tumors and designed to respond by directing the radiation beam towards target. This study reports on the measured FDG uptake from the first in human multi-institutional clinical trial (BIOGUIDE-X) evaluating the performance and safety of the RefleXion X1 PET-LINAC.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A total of nine patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung (5) and bone (4) tumors were enrolled in the Cohort II of this study after screening their pre-study diagnostic PET/CT, acquired up to 60 days prior to enrollment, to ensure their tumor size between 2 to 5 cm and SUVmax >6. After CT simulation, the tumor and OARs were delineated, and patients had a 4-pass Imaging-only (BgRT Modeling) PET/CT acquisition on the X1 system to generate biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) plans. Before the patients' first and last SBRT fractions, they were injected with FDG, and short PET pre-scan (1-pass) was performed on the X1 followed by a long-PET acquisition (4-pass) to emulate the expected BgRT dose distribution without firing beam. Patients were also imaged on a third-party diagnostic PET/CT scanner after the last-fraction X1 scan. This study compares the SUVmax from the screening PET/CT, X1 Imaging-only scan, X1 PET pre-scan and long scan before the first and last-fractions, and final diagnostic PET/CT.

RESULTS

The median time from injection to PET imaging was 84 ± 15.4 mins for X1 Imaging-only (used for generating BgRT plans), 77 ± 21.6 mins for X1 pre-scan (safety check before treatment start), 108+/- 22 mins for X1 long-PET (used to emulate treatment delivery), and 161 ± 23 mins for final diagnostic PET. For a nominal 10 mCi injection, the mean SUVmax for screening imaging performed on the diagnostic PET/CT was 10.8 ± 4.3. For a 15 mCi nominal injection, the mean SUVmax calculated on the X1 was 5.3 ± 2.6, 5.4 ± 2.0, 5.5 ± 2.6, 5.2 ± 1.8 and 5.4 ± 2.2 for the Imaging-only, first-fraction PET pre-scan, first-fraction long PET scan, last-fraction PET pre-scan, and last-fraction long PET scan, respectively. The overall median SUVmax for all patients across all timepoints and scans with X1 was calculated to be 4.8 with a range of 2.4 to 9.8. The median SUVmax for the diagnostic PET/CT scan after the last fraction X1 scan was 15.8 with a range of 8.5 to 27.7.

CONCLUSION

The dual PET arcs and limited axial extent of the X1 PET subsystem results in lower system sensitivity in comparison to diagnostic PET scanners equipped with full ring and larger axial extent, as expected. With the same FDG injection, the RefleXion X1 produced SUVmax values that were 30.4 % of the diagnostic PET/CT scanners' values. Nevertheless, the X1 collected sufficient emission data to enable successful completion of emulated BgRT deliveries that met dose accuracy criteria in a clinical setting.

Imaging Performance of the PET Scan on a Novel Ring Gantry-Based PET/CT Linear Accelerator System in the First-in-Human Study of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) is a novel tracked dose delivery modality using real-time positron emission tomography (PET) to guide radiotherapy beamlets. The present study was performed with sequential cohorts of participants to evaluate the performance and safety of BgRT. Primary endpoints were previously reported. We hereby report on one of the secondary endpoints assessing a novel treatment planning machine with integrated dual kVCT/PET imaging ("novel device") performance in comparison to a third-party diagnostic PET/CT scan.

MATERIALS/METHODS

This single-arm, open-label, prospective study included participants with at least 1 FDG-avid targetable primary or metastatic tumor (≥2cm and ≤5cm) in the lung or bone. PET imaging data were collected on the novel device and on a third-party diagnostic PET/CT performed in sequence once at the planning timepoint in Cohort I, and immediately before the last fraction among patients undergoing stereotactic radiotherapy in Cohort II. Three central read radiation oncologists (CRRO) provided an interpretation of the novel device PET scans which were compared to an agreement standard based on 3 central radiologists' review of the paired diagnostic PET/CT scan. Positive percent agreement for localization of the target tumor within the biology-tracking zone (BTZ) was the key metric because it reflects whether advancing patients to subsequent steps in the BgRT workflow based on the novel device's imaging was ultimately appropriate.

RESULTS

In Cohort 1, 6 image comparisons were performed. The positive (%) agreement for the aggregate radiation oncologist review was 100% (5/5), reflecting that in all 5 cases where the aggregate radiation oncologists deemed the tumor to fall within the BTZ based upon the novel device PET images, the central radiologists came to the same conclusion upon review of the paired diagnostic PET/CT images. The overall (%) agreement for the aggregate radiation oncologist review was 83.3% (5/6): localization was not established on the novel device in 1 case, even though it was established on the diagnostic PET/CT. This would not pose risk in real world practice as BgRT candidacy would be aborted for tumors not visible on the novel device. In Cohort II, among the 7 image comparisons, there was 100% positive percent agreement between the aggregate CRRO and the agreement standard as the localization criteria was met in both scans for all 7 patients. This was concordant with a 100% overall percent agreement.

CONCLUSION

This investigation demonstrated a 100% positive percent agreement between central review of this novel device images by radiation oncologists and central review of the accompanying third-party PET/CT images by radiologists. There were no cases where a positive localization by the aggregate CRRO was not confirmed by the third-party PET/CT standard, providing evidence against the likelihood of falsely positive localizations on the novel device that would inappropriately advance patients in the workflow.

Workflow Considerations for Biology-Guided Radiotherapy (BgRT) Implementation

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) is a novel platform that combines real-time PET imaging with a 6MV Linac to target tumors. The performance and safety of BgRT was assessed in the BIOGUIDE-X clinical trial. This study aims to report on the BgRT workflow steps and assess the time required for each step of the BgRT process during this trial.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A total of nine patients were enrolled in the second Cohort of the BIOGUIDE-X study which included patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung tumors (5) and bone tumors (4). The pre-treatment BgRT workflow includes CT simulation, contouring, imaging-only (BgRT Modeling) PET acquisition, BgRT planning, patient specific QA and plan approval. The imaging-only PET acquisition on the X1 collects a representative PET volumetric 3D image and is an input to develop the BgRT treatment plan. The steps during the BgRT delivery session are kVCT localization, PET pre-scan, PET evaluation and BgRT delivery. The PET PreScan is a 1-pass short-duration PET acquisition that is used to confirm that the PET biodistribution on the day of treatment is consistent with that of the imaging-only PET. During BIOGUIDE-X, the BgRT delivery step was replaced by a 4-pass long-PET acquisition that was used to emulate the expected BgRT dose distribution without turning the beam on. To assess BgRT workflow, times from 18F-FDG injection to image-only PET acquisition, 18F-FDG injection to PET pre-scan, Pre-scan to PET evaluation, and PET evaluation to BgRT delivery (long PET acquisition) were recorded.

RESULTS

Time between the 18F-FDG injection and the X1 imaging-only PET scan was 84 ± 19 minutes which includes time for 18F-FDG update. Average time to perform imaging-only PET scan was 26 ± 4 minutes. During the BgRT 'delivery' session, the mean time between the kVCT acquisition and PET pre-scan acquisition was 7 ± 3 minutes. The mean time to acquire a 1-pass PET pre-scan was 6 ± 1 then followed by 6 ± 1 minutes for the PET pre-scan dose calculation to estimate the BgRT doses that it would have delivered for this fraction. On average, the PET reconstruction, the PET signal localization verification and the evaluation of safety metrics took 11 ± 4 minutes. The mean time for BgRT 'delivery' was 27 ± 5 minutes based on the 4-pass long PET acquisition. Time from the start of the BgRT session to the end of the BgRT 'delivery' with this version of the investigative product release was 65 ± 9 minutes.

CONCLUSION

The new processes introduced by the BgRT technology were evaluated and found clinically feasible. Improvements are being undertaken to shorten the time required for each step and to increase patient comfort ahead of BgRT clinical implementation.

Microbiological quality aspects of ready-to-eat foods with focus on antibiotic resistance and biofilm formation abilities of foodborne bacteria

In this study, microbiological quality of 93 ready-to-eat food products was determined by enumeration of total aerobic bacteria and members of Enterobacteriaceae. Presence of Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes in the products were also investigated. Aerobic colony counts were between 1.9 × 102–3.4 × 108 CFU g−1 for 84.9% and Enterobacteriaceae counts were between 2 × 102 and 6.7 × 106 CFU g−1 for 43% of the samples. S. aureus was detected in 7.5% of the samples, but L. monocytogenes was not detected in any sample. 72.9% of the Enterobacteriaceae isolates showed resistance to at least one antibiotic tested, and 5 among the S. aureus isolates were found to be resistant to penicillin G and 2 against methicillin. Four S. aureus isolates produced only Staphylococcal enterotoxin A and 1 isolate produced both Staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B. Biofilm experiments revealed biofilm formation on polystyrene for 95.8%, 87.5%, and 91.6% of Enterobacteriaceae isolates at 4 °C, 22 °C, and 37 °C, respectively, whereas all S. aureus isolates formed biofilm at all temperatures.