Computed Tomography Myelosimulation Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging Registration to Delineate the Spinal Cord During Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Underestimation of the spinal cord's volume or position during spine stereotactic radiosurgery can lead to severe myelopathy, whereas overestimation can lead to tumor underdosage. Spinal cord delineation is commonly achieved by registering a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study with a computed tomography (CT) simulation scan or by performing myelography during CT simulation (myelosim). We compared treatment planning outcomes for these 2 techniques. METHODS: Twenty-three cases of spine stereotactic radiosurgery were analyzed that had both a myelosim and corresponding MRI study for registration. The spinal cord was contoured on both imaging data sets by 2 independent blinded physicians, and Dice similarity coefficients were calculated to compare their spatial overlap. Two treatment plans (16 Gy and 18 Gy) were created using the MRI and CT contours (92 plans total). Dosimetric parameters were extracted and compared by modality to assess tumor coverage and spinal cord dose. RESULTS: No differences were found in the partial spinal cord volumes contoured on MRI versus myelosim (4.71 ± 1.09 vs. 4.55 ± 1.03 cm3; P = 0.34) despite imperfect spatial agreement (mean Dice similarity coefficient, 0.68 ± 0.05). When the registered MRI contours were used for treatment planning, significantly worse tumor coverage and greater spinal cord doses were found compared with myelosim planning. For the 18-Gy plans, 10 of 23 MRI cases (43%) exceeded the spinal cord or cauda dose constraints when using myelosim as the reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: Significant spatial, rather than volumetric, differences were found between the MRI- and myelosim-defined spinal cord structures. Tumor coverage was compromised with MRI-based planning, and the high spinal cord doses were a concern. Future work is necessary to compare thin-cut, volumetric MRI registration or MRI simulation with myelosim.

Changes in prostate orientation due to removal of a Foley catheter.

PURPOSE: Investigate the impact on prostate orientation caused by use and removal of a Foley catheter, and the dosimetric impact on men prospectively treated with prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: Twenty-two men underwent a CT simulation with a Foley in place (FCT), followed immediately by a second treatment planning simulation without the Foley (TPCT). The change in prostate orientation was determined by rigid registration of three implanted transponders between FCT and TPCT and compared to measured orientation changes during treatment. The impact on treatment planning and delivery was investigated by analyzing the measured rotations during treatment relative to both CT scans, and introducing rotations of ±15° in the treatment plan to determine the maximum impact of allowed rotations. RESULTS: Removing the Foley caused a statistically significant prostate rotation (P < 0.0028) compared to normal biological motion in 60% of patients. The largest change in rotation due to removing a Foley occurs about the left-right axis (tilt) which has a standard deviation two to five times larger than changes in rotation about the Sup-Inf (roll) and Ant-Post (yaw) axes. The change in tilt due to removing a Foley for prone and supine patients was -1.1° ± 6.0° and 0.3° ± 7.4°, showing no strong directional bias. The average tilt during treatment was -1.6° ± 7.1° compared to the TPCT and would have been -2.0° ± 7.1° had the FCT been used as the reference. The TPCT was a better or equivalent representation of prostate tilt in 82% of patients, vs 50% had the FCT been used for treatment planning. However, 92.7% of fractions would still have been within the ±15° rotation limit if only the FCT were used for treatment planning. When rotated ±15°, urethra V105% = 38.85Gy  < 20% was exceeded in 27% of the instances, and prostate (CTV) coverage was maintained above D95%  > 37 Gy in all but one instance. CONCLUSIONS: Removing a Foley catheter can cause large prostate rotations. There does not appear to be a clear dosimetric benefit to obtaining the CT scan with a Foley catheter to define the urethra given the changes in urethral position from removing the Foley catheter. If urethral sparing is desired without the use of a Foley, utilization of an MRI to define the urethra may be necessary, or a pseudo-urethral planning organ at risk volume (PRV) may be used to limit dosimetric hot spots.

Imaging changes after stereotactic radiosurgery of primary and secondary malignant brain tumors.

After radiosurgery of malignant tumors, it can be difficult to discriminate between transient treatment effects, radiation necrosis, and tumor progression on post-treatment imaging. Misinterpretation of an enlarging lesion may lead to inappropriate treatment and contribute to disagreements about treatment efficacy. In an effort to clarify this problem, we reviewed our experience with interpreting post-radiosurgical imaging in patients with malignant primary and secondary brain tumors. We reviewed results of radiosurgery of 30 malignant gliomas and 35 metastatic brain tumors with minimum follow up of 1 year or until death. Of 30 gliomas, 73% were larger a mean of 13 weeks after radiosurgery. Of 35 metatstatic tumors, 22% were larger a mean of 10 weeks after radiosurgery. Eleven had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) of enlarging lesions. Eight showed increased activity with respect to brain; three decreased activity. Of the eight, six predicted incorrectly based upon the patients' subsequent courses (all alive, mean follow up of 27 months), and two correctly, with the patients dying from the imaged lesions 8 and 13 months later. Of the three with FDG uptake less than brain, one patient was alive with 32 weeks of follow up, and two patients died from the imaged lesion 13 and 21 months later. Radiographic enlargement after radiosurgery is common, especially for gliomas. Physicians caring for these patients should be aware of this phenomenon and be cautious in interpreting post-treatment images. MRI appearance may be useful for metastases. FDG-PET seems unreliable. Further evaluation of Tl-201 and HMPAO SPECT or MRS is warranted.