PurposeMRI is increasingly used in the diagnosis and therapy planning of uveal melanoma (UM). In this prospective cohort study, we assessed the radiological characteristics, in terms of anatomical... Show morePurposeMRI is increasingly used in the diagnosis and therapy planning of uveal melanoma (UM). In this prospective cohort study, we assessed the radiological characteristics, in terms of anatomical and functional imaging, of UM after ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy or proton beam therapy (PBT) and compared them to conventional ultrasound.MethodsTwenty-six UM patients were evaluated before and 3, 6 and 12 months after brachytherapy (n = 13) or PBT (n = 13). Tumour prominences were compared between ultrasound and MRI. On diffusion-weighted imaging, the apparent diffusion value (ADC), and on perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI), the time-intensity curves (TIC), relative peak intensity and outflow percentages were determined. Values were compared between treatments and with baseline.ResultsPre-treatment prominences were comparable between MRI and ultrasound (mean absolute difference 0.51 mm, p = 0.46), but larger differences were observed post-treatment (e.g. 3 months: 0.9 mm (p = 0.02)). Pre-treatment PWI metrics were comparable between treatment groups. After treatment, brachytherapy patients showed favourable changes on PWI (e.g. 67% outflow reduction at 3 months, p < 0.01). After PBT, significant perfusion changes were observed at a later timepoint (e.g. 38% outflow reduction at 6 months, p = 0.01). No consistent ADC changes were observed after either treatment, e.g. a 0.11 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s increase 12 months after treatment (p = 0.15).ConclusionMR-based follow-up is valuable for PBT-treated patients as favourable perfusion changes, including a reduction in outflow, can be detected before a reduction in size is apparent on ultrasound. For brachytherapy, a follow-up MRI is of less value as already 3 months post-treatment a significant size reduction can be measured on ultrasound. Show less
Jaarsma-Coes, M.G.; Ferreira, T.A.; Marinkovic, M.; Vu, T.H.K.; Vught, L. van; Haren, G.R.V.; ... ; Beenakker, J.W.M. 2023
Objective: Conventionally, ocular proton therapy (PT) is planned using measurements obtained by an ophthalmologist using ultrasound, fundoscopy, biometry, and intraoperative assessments. Owing to... Show moreObjective: Conventionally, ocular proton therapy (PT) is planned using measurements obtained by an ophthalmologist using ultrasound, fundoscopy, biometry, and intraoperative assessments. Owing to the recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of uveal melanoma (UM), it is possible to acquire high-resolution 3-dimensional images of the eye, providing the opportunity to incorporate MRI in ocular PT planning. In this study, we described how these measurements can be obtained using MRI, compared the MRI-based measurements with conventional ophthalmic measurements, and identified potential pitfalls for both modalities. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: Data from 23 consecutive patients with UM treated with PT were retrospectively evaluated. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of axial length, tumor height and basal diameter, and marker-tumor distances were compared with the conventional ophthalmic measurements, and discrepancies were evaluated in a multidisciplinary setting. Main Outcome Measures: Tumor prominence and basal diameters on MRI and ultrasound, axial length on MRI and biometry, tumor-marker distances on MRI and measured intraoperatively. Results: The mean absolute differences of the tumor height and basal diameter measurements between ultrasound and MRI were 0.57 mm and 1.44 mm, respectively. Larger absolute differences in height and basal diameter were observed when the full tumor extent was not visible on ultrasound (0.92 mm and 1.67 mm, respectively) compared with when the full tumor extent was visible (0.44 mm and 1.15 mm, respectively). When the full tumor was not visible on ultrasound, MRI was considered more reliable. Tumor-marker distances measured using MRI and intraoperative techniques differed < 1 mm in 55% of the markers. For anteriorly located and mushroom-shaped tumors (25% of the markers), MRI provided more accurate measurements. In flat UM (15% of the markers), however, it was difficult to delineate the tumor on MRI. The mean absolute difference in axial length between optical biometry and MRI was 0.50 mm. The presence of the tumor was found to influence optical biometry in 15 of 22 patients; the remaining patients showed a better agreement (0.30 mm). Magnetic resonance imaging-based biometry was considered more reliable in patients with UM. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging allowed for the 3-dimensional assessment of the tumor and surrounding tissue. In specific patients, it provided a more reliable measurement of axial length, tumor dimensions, and marker-tumor distances and could contribute to a more accurate treatment planning. Never-theless, a combined evaluation remains advised, especially for flat UM. Show less
Background and purpose: To update the digital online atlas for organs at risk (OARs) delineation in neurooncology based on high-quality computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging... Show moreBackground and purpose: To update the digital online atlas for organs at risk (OARs) delineation in neurooncology based on high-quality computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with new OARs. Materials and methods: In this planned update of the neurological contouring atlas published in 2018, ten new clinically relevant OARs were included, after thorough discussion between experienced neuroradiation oncologists (RTOs) representing 30 European radiotherapy-oncology institutes. Inclusion was based on daily practice and research requirements. Consensus was reached for the delineation after critical review. Contouring was performed on registered CT with intravenous (IV) contrast (soft tissue & bone window setting) and 3 Tesla (T) MRI (T1 with gadolinium & T2 FLAIR) images of one patient (1 mm slices). For illustration purposes, delineation on a 7 T MRI without IV contrast from a healthy volunteer was added. OARs were delineated by three experienced RTOs and a neuroradiologist based on the relevant literature. Results: The presented update of the neurological contouring atlas was reviewed and approved by 28 experts in the field. The atlas is available online and includes in total 25 OARs relevant to neurooncology, contoured on CT , MRI T1 and FLAIR (3 T , 7 T). Three-dimensional (3D) rendered films are also available online. Conclusion: In order to further decrease inter-and intra-observer OAR delineation variability in the field of neuro-oncology, we propose the use of this contouring atlas in photon and particle therapy, in clinical practice and in the research setting. The updated atlas is freely available on www.cancerdata.org. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. Radiotherapy and Oncology 160 (2021) 259-265 Show less
Proton therapy offers an attractive alternative to conventional photon-based radiotherapy in low grade glioma patients, delivering radiotherapy with equivalent efficacy to the tumour with less... Show moreProton therapy offers an attractive alternative to conventional photon-based radiotherapy in low grade glioma patients, delivering radiotherapy with equivalent efficacy to the tumour with less radiation exposure to the brain. In the Netherlands, patients with favourable prognosis based on tumour and patient characteristics can be offered proton therapy. Radiation-induced neurocognitive function decline is a major concern in these long surviving patients. Although level 1 evidence of superior clinical outcome with proton therapy is lacking, the Dutch National Health Care Institute concluded that there is scientific evidence to assume that proton therapy can have clinical benefit by reducing radiation-induced brain damage. Based on this decision, proton therapy is standard insured care for selected low grade glioma patients. Patients with other intracranial tumours can also qualify for proton therapy, based on the same criteria. In this paper, the evidence and considerations that led to this decision are summarised. Additionally, the eligibility criteria for proton therapy and the steps taken to obtain high-quality data on treatment outcome are discussed. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
