The use of dual vacuum stabilization device to reduce kidney motion for stereotactic radiotherapy planning.

Abdominal stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy is aided by motion management strategies to ensure accurate dose delivery as targets such as the kidney are easily influenced by breathing motion. Commercial devices such as compression plates and dual vacuum technology have been demonstrated to reduce the motion of lung and liver tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a dual vacuum system in reducing kidney motion as well to investigate any relationship between abdominal wall motions with kidney motion. Ten healthy volunteers were set up with and without vacuum compression (Elekta BodyFIX(TM)) to simulate free and dampened breathing. Ultrasound imaging was used to visualize kidney motion at the same time an abdominal surface marker was monitored using infrared imaging (Varian, Real Time Position Management). The resulting kidney and abdominal motion tracks were imported into motion analysis (Physmo(TM)) and custom built software (Matlab) to calculate amplitude of motion independent of shifting baselines. Thirty-four kidney datasets were available for analysis, with six datasets unable to be retrieved. With vacuum compression six out of nine participants showed a mean reduction of kidney motion ranging between 1.6 and 8 mm (p < 0.050). One participant showed an increase in motion of 8.2 mm (p < 0.001) with vacuum compression. Two participants showed no significant change (<1 mm) in kidney motion. No relationship was observed for abdominal wall motion and motion changes in the left kidney (r = 0.345, p = 0.402) or right kidney (r = 0.527, p = 0.145). Vacuum compression reduced kidney motion in the majority of participants; however larger breathing motion can also result from its use. No pattern emerged regarding which patients may benefit from vacuum immobilization as abdominal wall motion was not found to be an adequate surrogate for kidney motion.

Multiparametric 3T MRI in the evaluation of intraglandular prostate cancer: correlation with histopathology.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is common and may be treated immediately or managed conservatively by observation. We sought to determine how reliable multiparametric MRI is in the detection of intraprostatic prostate cancer and what role it has in risk stratification. METHODS: The histology from 38 whole mount prostate specimens was compared with preoperative multiparametric 3T MRI studies with an endorectal receiver coil in place. T1-weighted, T2-weighted, diffusion (b values 50 400 800), perfusion (Ve , Kep , Ktrans , area under the curve) and proton spectroscopic sequences were used. RESULTS: For cancers greater than 0.5 cc, the detection rate for combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was 85%. For cancers 0.1 cc-0.5 cc, the sensitivity was 52%.Per patient, false positive rate was 50% for combined T2-weighted imaging and DWI. Perfusion imaging had a sensitivity of 70% for tumours greater than 0.5 cc but had a per patient false positive rate of 80% influenced by benign prostatic hypertrophy. In only 15 patients could a satisfactory spectroscopy study be obtained. Weak correlation was found between the Gleason score and tumour size (r = 0.51), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (r = -0.30) and (choline + creatine)/citrate ratio (r = 0.41). CONCLUSION: T2-weighted imaging and DWI in combination were the best strategy for detecting prostate cancer and had a sensitivity of 85% for detecting lesions greater than 0.5 cc. At 3T, an ADC threshold of between 1100-1200.10(-6) mm(2) /s was optimal for diagnosing prostate cancer. There are significant limitations in the use of perfusion and spectroscopy to detect prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted or guided biopsy post-MRI imaging is likely to be needed in some patients to assist risk stratification.

The utility of e-Learning to support training for a multicentre bladder online adaptive radiotherapy trial (TROG 10.01-BOLART).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An e-Learning programme appeared useful for providing training and information regarding a multi-centre image guided radiotherapy trial. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the utility of this e-Learning programme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Modules were created on relevant pelvic anatomy, Cone Beam CT soft tissue recognition and trial details. Radiation therapist participants' knowledge and confidence were evaluated before, at the end of, and after at least 6 weeks of e-Learning (long term). RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-five participants were recruited from 12 centres, with 118 in the first, and 67 in the second cohort. One hundred and forty-six participants had two tests (pre and post e-Learning) and 39 of these had three tests (pre, post, and long term). There was an increase confidence after completion of modules (p<0.001). The first cohort pre scores increased from 67 ± 11 to 79 ± 8 (p<0.001) post. The long term same question score was 73 ± 14 (p=0.025, comparing to pre-test), and different questions' score was 77 ± 13 (p=0.014). In the second cohort, pre-test scores were 64 ± 10, post-test same question score 78 ± 9 (p<0.001) and different questions' score 81 ± 11 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: e-Learning for a multi-centre clinical trial was feasible and improved confidence and knowledge.

Comparison of readers' detection of right-sided and left-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications.

INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study was to determine if there is a statistically and clinically significant difference in diagnostic performance (cancer diagnosis) and perceptual performance (microcalcification detection) when detecting left-sided or right-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications. METHODS: Eight radiologist readers (8-20 years experience in radiology, five current BreastScreen readers) read a set of 100 digital mammograms (23/100 had proven malignancies and 52/100 had confirmed microcalcifications) for three reads (random case order in each read). The same mammograms were presented on two reads, serving as the baseline reads. The data from these reads were used to calculate intra-observer variability (presented in an earlier study). The experimental read consisted of left-right mirror images of the original mammograms. In each read, the radiologists were requested to 'clear' or 'call-back' cases and to indicate if any microcalcifications (benign and malignant) were present on the mammograms. Reading conditions were standardised. RESULTS: Comparison of intra-reader performance difference for left-sided versus right-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications with intra-observer variability for breast cancer diagnosis and microcalcification detection, respectively, revealed no clinically significant difference between left-sided and right-sided detections. Per-case analysis showed more left-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications correctly detected. This left-right difference in detection did not reach statistical significance, P-value of 0.28 for cancer diagnosis and 0.74 for microcalcification detection. CONCLUSION: There is no statistically or clinically significant difference between left-sided and right-sided breast cancer diagnosis and microcalcification detection in a group of experienced radiologists. Individual reading patterns do not affect detection rates of left-sided and right-sided cancers and microcalcifications.

Intrareader variability in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance amongst experienced radiologists in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was, for a group of experienced radiologists, to identify the magnitude of and statistical significance of intrareader variability in mammographic diagnostic performance or cancer diagnosis and mammographic perceptual performance or microcalcification detection. METHODS: Eight radiologist readers (8-30 years experience in radiology, five current BreastScreen readers) read a set of 100 digital mammograms on two separate reads with random case orders. Twenty-three of the 100 had proven malignancies, and 52 of the 100 had confirmed microcalcifications. The same mammograms were presented for both reads. The radiologists were requested to clear or call back cases and to indicate if any benign and malignant microcalcifications were present on the mammograms. Reading conditions were standardised. RESULTS: Intrareader variability in accuracy was demonstrated to be between 0% and 6% for the diagnostic task of breast cancer diagnosis and between 0% and 16% for the perceptual task of microcalcification detection. Intrareader agreement in the group of readers was high; between 75% and 93% (κ=0.36-0.72) for cancer diagnosis and between 77.5% and 93% (κ=0.17-0.77) for microcalcification detection. There was no correlation between reader's experience in radiology or being a BreastScreen reader and level of intrareader variability in cancer diagnosis and microcalcification detection. CONCLUSION: There exists intrareader variability in diagnostic and perceptual performance. Despite this variability, intrareader agreement remains high.

Comparison of 3MP medical-grade to 1MP office-grade LCD monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance.

INTRODUCTION: Picture archiving and communication systems images designed to be viewed on high-resolution medical-grade monitors are routinely viewed on office-grade monitors on the wards or at home. This study aimed to determine whether a statistically significant difference in diagnostic (cancer detection) and perceptual (microcalcification detection) performance exists between 3MP grade and 1MP office-grade monitors. METHODS: 3MP Dome medical-grade liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors (Planar, Beaverton, OR, USA) were compared to 1MP Dell office-grade LCD monitors (Dell Inc, Round Rock, TX, USA). Eight radiologists (reader experience 8-30 years) read the same set of 100 mammograms (23/100 with proven cancers and 52/100 with microcalcifications) presented in random order on three occasions separated by two time intervals of 12 weeks. Reads 1 and 3 utilised 3MP monitors and formed the baseline read. Read 2 utilised 1MP monitors and constituted the experimental read. Reading conditions were standardised. Readers were aware of which monitors they were using. Multivariate logistic regression analysis (to account for reader variability and monitor impact) was performed to assess for statistical significance. RESULTS: At α = 5%, confidence intervals analysis comparing the measured parameters between 1MP to 3MP monitors demonstrated no statistically significant difference in diagnostic and perceptual performance for the reader group. In cancer detection (the diagnostic task), reader accuracy remained high irrespective of monitor type. Regression analysis comparing performance with 1MP against 3MP monitors found P values of 0.693 and 0.324 for diagnostic and perceptual performance, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically and clinically significant differences between 3MP and 1MP monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance. Comparable performance may be due to compensatory behaviour by readers.

Prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a comparison of calcitriol, vitamin D plus calcium, and alendronate plus calcium.

High-dose corticosteroids, used for many medical conditions, are associated with rapid bone loss from sites such as the vertebrae, and compression fractures can be observed within months. Recent trials suggest treatment with bisphosphonates or active vitamin D analogs can reduce bone loss and the risk of fracture associated with glucocorticoids, but few studies have directly compared such agents. We conducted a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial to compare the efficacy of alendronate, calcitriol, and simple vitamin D in prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced bone loss. A total of 195 subjects (134 females and 61 males) commencing or already taking glucocorticoids were randomized to one of three groups: calcitriol, 0.5 to 0.75 microg/day; simple vitamin D (ergocalciferol, 30,000 IU weekly) plus calcium carbonate (600 mg daily); or alendronate, 10 mg/day plus calcium carbonate (600 mg daily). Over 2 years, mean lumbar bone mineral density change was +5.9% with alendronate, -0.5% with ergocalciferol, and -0.7% with calcitriol (p < 0.001). At the femoral neck, there was no significant difference in bone mineral density change between the treatments over 2 years: alendronate (+0.9%), ergocalciferol (-3.2%), and calcitriol (-2.2%). Lumbar bone loss varied according to whether patients were starting or receiving chronic glucocorticoids, and there was a significant treatment x prior glucocorticoid use interaction effect. Six of 66 calcitriol subjects, 1 of 61 ergocalciferol subjects, and 0 of 64 alendronate subjects sustained new vertebral fractures. These data do not suggest any difference between simple vitamin D and calcitriol but do show that alendronate was superior to either treatment for glucocorticoid induced bone loss.