Treatment outcome with mTOR inhibitors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with nonclear and sarcomatoid histologies.

BACKGROUND: The clinical trials that reported benefit of the rapalogs temsirolimus and everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were primarily conducted in patients with clear-cell histology (ccRCC). We assessed outcome with these mammalian target of rapamicin (mTOR) inhibitors in two subsets of kidney cancer: sarcomatoid variant ccRCC and nonclear-cell RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline clinical features, information on prior treatment, and histologic subtypes were collected for patients previously treated with rapalogs for metastatic RCC of either nonclear phenotype or ccRCC with sarcomatoid features. Outcome was assessed centrally by a dedicated research radiologist for determination of tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Eighty-five patients received temsirolimus (n = 59) or everolimus (n = 26). Nonclear-cell phenotypes included papillary (n = 14), chromophobe (n = 9), collecting duct (n = 4), translocation-associated (n = 3), and unclassified (n = 32) RCC. Twenty-three patients had clear-cell histology with sarcomatoid features. The response rate in assessable patients (n = 82) was 7% (all partial responses); 49% of patients achieved stable disease, and 44% had progressive disease as their best response. Tumor shrinkage was observed in 26 patients (32%). Median PFS and OS were 2.9 and 8.7 months, respectively. Nine patients (11%) were treated for ≥1 year, including cases of papillary (n = 3), chromophobe (n = 2), unclassified (n = 3) RCC, and ccRCC with sarcomatoid features (n = 1). No tumor shrinkages were observed for patients with collecting duct or translocation-associated RCC. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients with nonclear-cell and sarcomatoid variant ccRCC subtypes benefit from mTOR inhibitors, but most have poor outcome. Histologic subtype does not appear to be helpful in selecting patients for rapalog therapy. Future efforts should include the identification of predictive tissue biomarkers.

MR/CT image fusion of the spine after spondylodesis: a feasibility study.

The objective of this study is to evaluate feasibility, accuracy and time requirements of MR/CT image fusion of the lumbar spine after spondylodesis. Sagittal MR and CT images derived from standard imaging protocols (sagittal T2-weighted MR/sagittal reformatted multi-planar-reformation of the CT) of the lumbar spine with correct (n = 5) and incorrect (n = 5) implant position were fused by two readers (R1, R2) using OsiriX in two sessions placing one (session 1) or two (session 2) reference point(s) on the dorsal tip(s) of the cranial and caudal endplates from the second lumbar to the first sacral vertebra. R1 was an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist; R2 a spine surgeon, both had received a short training on the software tool. Fusion times and fusion accuracy, defined as the largest deviation between MR and CT in the median sagittal plane on the ventral tip of the cranial end plate of the most cranial vertebra visible on the CT, were measured in both sessions. Correct or incorrect implant position was evaluated upon the fused images for all patients by an experienced senior staff musculoskeletal radiologist. Mean fusion time (session 1/session 2; in seconds) was 100.4/95 (R1) and 104.2/119.8 (R2). Mean fusion deviation (session 1/session 2; in mm) was 1.24/2.20 (R1) and 0.79/1.62 (R2). The correct/incorrect implant position was identified correctly in all cases. In conclusion, MR/CT image fusion of the spine with metallic implants is feasible, fast, accurate and easy to implement in daily routine work.

Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare the accuracy of linear bone measurements of cone beam CT (CBCT) with multidetector CT (MDCT) and validate intraoral soft-tissue measurements in CBCT. METHODS: Comparable views of CBCT and MDCT were obtained from eight intact cadaveric heads. The anatomical positions of the gingival margin and the buccal alveolar bone ridge were determined. Image measurements (CBCT/MDCT) were performed upon multiplanar reformatted data sets and compared with the anatomical measurements; the number of non-assessable sites (NASs) was evaluated. RESULTS: Radiological measurements were accurate with a mean difference from anatomical measurements of 0.14 mm (CBCT) and 0.23 mm (MDCT). These differences were statistically not significant, but the limits of agreement for bone measurements were broader in MDCT (-1.35 mm; 1.82 mm) than in CBCT (-0.93 mm; 1.21 mm). The limits of agreement for soft-tissue measurements in CBCT were smaller (-0.77 mm; 1.07 mm), indicating a slightly higher accuracy. More NASs occurred in MDCT (14.5%) than in CBCT (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is slightly more reliable for linear measurements than MDCT and less affected by metal artefacts. CBCT accuracy of linear intraoral soft-tissue measurements is similar to the accuracy of bone measurements.