Quality assurance assessment of intra-acquisition diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging registration and contour propagation for head and neck cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Adequate image registration of anatomical and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans is necessary for MR-guided head and neck cancer (HNC) adaptive radiotherapy planning. Despite the quantitative capabilities of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI for treatment plan adaptation, geometric distortion remains a considerable limitation. Therefore, we systematically investigated various deformable image registration (DIR) methods to co-register DWI and T2-weighted (T2W) images. MATERIALS/METHODS: We compared three commercial (ADMIRE, Velocity, Raystation) and three open-source (Elastix with default settings [Elastix Default], Elastix with parameter set 23 [Elastix 23], Demons) post-acquisition DIR methods applied to T2W and DWI MRI images acquired during the same imaging session in twenty immobilized HNC patients. In addition, we used the non-registered images (None) as a control comparator. Ground-truth segmentations of radiotherapy structures (tumour and organs at risk) were generated by a physician expert on both image sequences. For each registration approach, structures were propagated from T2W to DWI images. These propagated structures were then compared with ground-truth DWI structures using the Dice similarity coefficient and mean surface distance. RESULTS: 19 left submandibular glands, 18 right submandibular glands, 20 left parotid glands, 20 right parotid glands, 20 spinal cords, and 12 tumours were delineated. Most DIR methods took <30 s to execute per case, with the exception of Elastix 23 which took ∼458 s to execute per case. ADMIRE and Elastix 23 demonstrated improved performance over None for all metrics and structures (Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.05), while the other methods did not. Moreover, ADMIRE and Elastix 23 significantly improved performance in individual and pooled analysis compared to all other methods. CONCLUSIONS: The ADMIRE DIR method offers improved geometric performance with reasonable execution time so should be favoured for registering T2W and DWI images acquired during the same scan session in HNC patients. These results are important to ensure the appropriate selection of registration strategies for MR-guided radiotherapy.

Effectiveness of postoperative radiotherapy after radical cystectomy for locally advanced bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local-regional failure (LF) for locally advanced bladder cancer (LABC) after radical cystectomy (RC) is common even with chemotherapy and is associated with high morbidity/mortality. Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) can reduce LF and may enhance overall survival (OS) but has no defined role. We hypothesized that the addition of PORT would improve OS in LABC in a large nationwide oncology database. METHODS: We identified ≥ pT3pN0-3M0 LABC patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed 2004-2014 who underwent RC ± PORT. OS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to identify predictors of OS. Propensity matching was performed to match RC patients who received PORT vs those who did not. RESULTS: 15,124 RC patients were identified with 512 (3.3%) receiving PORT. Median OS was 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2-21.8) for PORT vs 20.8 months (95% CI, 20.3-21.3) for no PORT (P = 0.178). In multivariable analysis, PORT was independently associated with improved OS: hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.97); P = 0.008. A one-to-three propensity match yielded 1,858 patients (24.9% receiving PORT and 75.1% without). In the propensity-matched cohort, median OS was 19.8 months (95% CI, 18.0-21.6) for PORT vs 16.9 months (95% CI, 15.6-18.1) for no PORT (P = 0.030). In the propensity-matched cohort of urothelial carcinoma patients (N = 1,460), PORT was associated with improved OS for pT4, pN+, and positive margins (P < 0.01 all). CONCLUSION: In this observational cohort, PORT was associated with improved OS in LABC. While the data should be interpreted cautiously, these results lend support to the use of PORT in selected patients with LABC, regardless of histology. Prospective trials of PORT are warranted.

Prospective preference assessment of patients' willingness to participate in a randomized controlled trial of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate patients' willingness to participate (WTP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook a qualitative research study in which we prospectively enrolled patients with clinically localized PCa. We used purposive sampling to ensure a diverse sample based on age, race, travel distance, and physician. Patients participated in a semi-structured interview in which they reviewed a description of a hypothetical RCT, were asked open-ended and focused follow-up questions regarding their motivations for and concerns about enrollment, and completed a questionnaire assessing characteristics such as demographics and prior knowledge of IMRT or PBT. Patients' stated WTP was assessed using a 6-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-six eligible patients (33 white, 13 black) were enrolled from the practices of eight physicians. We identified 21 factors that impacted patients' WTP, which largely centered on five major themes: altruism/desire to compare treatments, randomization, deference to physician opinion, financial incentives, and time demands/scheduling. Most patients (27 of 46, 59%) stated they would either "definitely" or "probably" participate. Seventeen percent (8 of 46) stated they would "definitely not" or "probably not" enroll, most of whom (6 of 8) preferred PBT before their physician visit. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients indicated high WTP in a RCT comparing IMRT and PBT for PCa.