Quantitative and Qualitative Impact of CT-Based Radiotherapy Dose Maps on Radiologists' Interpretation of Post-treatment Thoracic Surveillance Imaging

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

For diagnostic radiologists, interpretation of surveillance imaging for oncology patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) can be challenging because (1) the imaging order may not adequately describe the radiation fields and (2) RT treatment effect and progression can appear similar. Volumetric dose visualization used for plan review is often inaccessible to radiologists. We hypothesize that displaying RT dose would improve radiologists' confidence and ability to correctly identify and distinguish irradiated targets and treatment effects.

MATERIALS/METHODS

CT images were read by a board-certified cardiothoracic radiologist and a diagnostic radiology resident. The readers interpreted pre-RT, treatment planning, and 3-4 month post-RT CT images in anonymized software sessions first without, then-after a 1 month "washout" period-with access to RT dose overlay. Six color-coded isodose lines ranging from 25% to 110% represented in absolute cGy were displayed along with a brief clinical history. RT fractionation schedules ranged in BED10 from 39 to 112.5 Gy. Readers were asked to label the treated lesion(s) and treatment effect(s), and record their confidence using a Likert scale of 1-5 and agreement with statements using yes/no responses.

RESULTS

Two readersindependently interpreted imaging for 32 patients who received thoracic RT to 1-5 lesion(s) for primary (24) or metastatic (8) cancer. Nineteen patients had 1 lesion and 13 patients had >1 lesion. Correct identification of all treated lesions significantly increased with the addition of dose visualization (61% to 81%; McNemar test, p = 0.00079), with the largest increase noted for cases with >1 lesion (15% to 54%; McNemar test, p = 0.0039). With the addition of dose information, the number of false negatives attributable to missed extranodal targets fell from 52% to 18%. Without dose information, 13% of labeled lesions and treatment effects fell outside of the 25% isodose lines, representing false positives. With the addition of dose information, false positives fell below 2% for both lesions and treatment effects. The readers' confidence that they had identified treated lesion(s) increased from a rating of 4.1 to 4.8 on a scale of 1-5 (Paired two-tail t test; p = 0.000005).

CONCLUSION

Whendiagnostic radiologists have access to dose visualization, correct identification rate of irradiated lesions and treatment effects, as well as confidence in these identifications significantly increased. The decrease in false negatives could reduce potential missed identification of tumor progression while the decrease in false positives could reduce inaccurate identification of treatment failure in a new or stable lesion. Our results demonstrate that adding volumetric visualization of dose to imaging could improve quality of surveillance care for patients with irradiated thoracic malignancies.

Clinicopathologic Features of Prostate Cancer with Mesorectal Lymph Node Involvement on PSMA or Fluciclovine PET/CT

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Advanced PET imaging has shown more prevalent mesorectal lymph node (LN) involvement in prostate cancer than previously appreciated. The clinical features predicting risk for mesorectal involvement are not well established and the prognostic impact is unclear. This may have implications on management including radiotherapy field design. This study aims to identify clinical and pathologic characteristics associated with mesorectal involvement identified on PSMA or fluciclovine PET/CT.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We conducted a single institution retrospective review of prostate cancer patients with F-18 fluciclovine, F-18 piflufolastat, or Ga-68 gozetotide PET between January 2020 and 2023 demonstrating tracer-avid mesorectal LN in the setting of newly diagnosed disease (ND) or biochemical failure after curative-intent therapy (BF). Clinical characteristics, pathologic findings, and early clinical outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified 16 ND and 34 BF patients with uptake in at least one mesorectal LN on PET. For ND patients, clinical features at initial diagnosis were median PSA of 35.2 (range 9.6-659), median grade group 5, and 87% with clinical or radiographic T3/T4 disease. Radiographic PET staging among ND patients (excluding mesorectal LNs) were 19% N0M0, 25% N1M0, 56% as N1M1. For BF patients, clinical features at initial diagnosis were median PSA 9.2 (range 4.1-90) and median grade group 4. Primary treatment was prostatectomy in most (91%), with a high rate of high-risk features: 68% pT3-4, 28% pN1, and 32% had persistent detectable postop PSA. Radiographic PET staging among BF patients (excluding mesorectal LNs) were 29% N0M0, 38% N1M0, 12% N0M1, and 21% as N1M1. High-risk histologic features (cribriform, intraductal, ductal, or neuroendocrine) were identified in 88% of ND and 48% BF patients. Of these patients, 86% had cribriform pattern. Median PSA prior to PET for ND and BF patients was 37.0 (range 8.5-659) and 1.9 (0.2-11.1). Median interval from initial therapy to PET for BF patients was 4.4yr (range 0.2-19.7). Median follow-up post-PET was 8.7mo (range 3.4-29) for ND and 8.8mo (range 0-76) for BF patients. Of patients with M0 PET staging, none of the 7 ND patients developed DMs, and 1 of 23 BF patients developed DM after 4 yrs.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of prostate cancer patients with mesorectal involvement, we found a high incidence of high grade, T3-4 disease, and cribriform pattern, especially in ND patients. For BF patients, there was a high incidence of pT3-4 and pN1 disease at time of initial treatment. Overall, most patients had concurrent regional nodal disease on PET. Longer follow up of clinical outcomes and comparison to high-risk patients without mesorectal LN involvement is needed to understand the prognostic significance and predictors of mesorectal LN spread. Additional studies are needed to identify patients at highest risk in whom elective coverage of mesorectal lymphatics with elective pelvic nodal RT may be warranted.

Initial Clinical Outcomes of a Phase II Trial of Focal Salvage LDR Brachytherapy for Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer after External Beam Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of focal salvage low dose rate brachytherapy (FSB) for biopsy proven local recurrence of prostate cancer after definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with a Phoenix definition PSA recurrence (nadir + 2.0ng/dL) after definitive EBRT for localized prostate cancer and a negative metastatic work up were enrolled in a Phase II clinical trial. Patients first underwent MR-guided transperineal mapping biopsy of the prostate using a template grid. Patients with a pathologically confirmed recurrence underwent FSB using iodine-125 seeds to a prescription dose of 145 Gy. The brachytherapy planning target volume (PTV) was defined by the positions of the pathologically negative core biopsies adjacent to the positive core biopsies as recorded on the template grid during the biopsy procedure. An intraoperative treatment plan was then developed to cover the PTV with the 145 Gy isodose line. Follow up included assessment of genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 (CTCAEv4.03), patient reported outcomes using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-26 (EPIC-26) forms, and serial PSA blood draws.

RESULTS

Ten patients underwent FSB. The median prior EBRT dose was 7805 cGy (interquartile range IQR 7560-7920) and the median time from completion of EBRT to FSB was 81 months (IQR 68-134). The median PSA prior to FSB was 3.2 ng/dL (IQR 2.3 - 4.5). The median follow up after FSB was 32 months (IQR 18-57). Eight patients were free of Phoenix definition PSA failure at last follow up. Of the two patients who experienced a PSA failure, one developed distant metastases 5 months after FSB and the other a biopsy proven seminal vesicle recurrence 3 years after FSB. The median change in post FSB IPSS score compared to the pre-FSB IPSS score was an increase of 1.5 (IQR -1.5 to 8) at 3 month follow up and an increase of 3.5 (IQR 0.5 to 5.5) at last follow up (≥1 year). The median change in post FSB EPIC-26 urinary domain score compared to the pre-FSB score was -1 (IQR -26 to +14.5) at 3 month follow up and +2 (IQR -12.5 to +14.5) at last follow up (≥1 year). The median change in post FSB EPIC-26 bowel domain score compared to the pre-FSB score was -2 (IQR -9.5 to 0.0) at 3 month follow up and 0 (IQR -6.0 to +3.0) at last follow up (≥1 year). No patients experienced post FSB Grade 3 or higher GU or GI toxicities.

CONCLUSION

High dose FSB for a local recurrence of prostate cancer after EBRT can be delivered with good biochemical control and a favorable toxicity profile. Further clinical trial enrollment and longer follow up will be needed to better assess long term outcomes.