RECIST 1.1 Target Lesion Categorical Response in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparison of Conventional versus Volumetric Assessment.

Purpose To investigate Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) approximations of target lesion tumor burden by comparing categorical treatment response according to conventional RECIST versus actual tumor volume measurements of RECIST target lesions. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of individuals with metastatic renal cell carcinoma enrolled in a clinical trial (from 2003 to 2017) and includes individuals who underwent baseline and at least one follow-up chest, abdominal, and pelvic CT study and with at least one target lesion. Target lesion volume was assessed by (a) Vmodel, a spherical model of conventional RECIST 1.1, which was extrapolated from RECIST diameter, and (b) Vactual, manually contoured volume. Volumetric responses were determined by the sum of target lesion volumes (Vmodel-sum TL and Vactual-sum TL, respectively). Categorical volumetric thresholds were extrapolated from RECIST. McNemar tests were used to compare categorical volume responses. Results Target lesions were assessed at baseline (638 participants), week 9 (593 participants), and week 17 (508 participants). Vmodel-sum TL classified more participants as having progressive disease (PD), compared with Vactual-sum TL at week 9 (52 vs 31 participants) and week 17 (57 vs 39 participants), with significant overall response discordance (P < .001). At week 9, 25 (48%) of 52 participants labeled with PD by Vmodel-sum TL were classified as having stable disease by Vactual-sum TL. Conclusion A model of RECIST 1.1 based on a single diameter measurement more frequently classified PD compared with response assessment by actual measured tumor volume. Keywords: Urinary, Kidney, Metastases, Oncology, Tumor Response, Volume Analysis, Outcomes Analysis ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01865747 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT.

Background Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multicenter multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used deidentified clinical multiphase CT and MRI and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 to August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS version 2018 category was computed as a rescored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1, definitely benign; LR-2, probably benign; LR-3, intermediate probability of malignancy; LR-4, probably hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]; LR-5, definitely HCC; LR-M, probably malignant but not HCC specific; and LR-TIV, tumor in vein) was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, and LR-TIV), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between research-versus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results The study population consisted of 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT examinations, 391 MRI examinations). ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.73), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.70), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs 0.62, respectively; P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs 0.53, respectively; P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion There was moderate agreement for LI-RADS version 2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorials by Johnson and Galgano and Smith in this issue.

Novel techniques for intraoperative assessment of margin involvement.

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) is now the standard of care for the majority of women with early stage breast cancer. There is a finite rate of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) for breast conserving therapy (BCT) with annual rates of less than 1% for specialist breast practices. There has been recent consensus on the definition of an adequate resection margin for both invasive and noninvasive breast cancer treated with BCS, although some variation in margin policy persists with definitions of 'no tumour at ink', 1 and 2 mm margin mandates. Despite the development of methods for intraoperative assessment of margins, up to 20% of patients require further surgery (cavity re-excision or completion mastectomy) to achieve clear surgical margins. In the past decade, several novel technologies for intraoperative margin assessment have been explored with the aim of reducing rates of re-operation and its attendant patient anxiety, inconvenience and additional cost. Ongoing studies are addressing the safety, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these novel technologies relative to methods in routine clinical usage.

Intraoperative Assessment of Tumor Resection Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery Using 18F-FDG Cerenkov Luminescence Imaging: A First-in-Human Feasibility Study.

In early-stage breast cancer, the primary treatment option for most women is breast-conserving surgery (BCS). There is a clear need for more accurate techniques to assess resection margins intraoperatively, because on average 20% of patients require further surgery to achieve clear margins. Cerenkov luminescence imaging (CLI) combines optical and molecular imaging by detecting light emitted by 18F-FDG. Its high-resolution and small size imaging equipment make CLI a promising technology for intraoperative margin assessment. A first-in-human study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of 18F-FDG CLI for intraoperative assessment of tumor margins in BCS. Methods: Twenty-two patients with invasive breast cancer received 18F-FDG (5 MBq/kg) 45-60 min before surgery. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed using an increased 99mTc-nanocolloid activity of 150 MBq to facilitate nodal detection against the γ-probe background signal (cross-talk) from 18F-FDG. The cross-talk and 99mTc dose required was evaluated in 2 lead-in studies. Immediately after excision, specimens were imaged intraoperatively in an investigational CLI system. The first 10 patients were used to optimize the imaging protocol; the remaining 12 patients were included in the analysis dataset. Cerenkov luminescence images from incised BCS specimens were analyzed postoperatively by 2 surgeons blinded to the histopathology results, and mean radiance and margin distance were measured. The agreement between margin distance on CLI and histopathology was assessed. Radiation doses to staff were measured. Results: Ten of the 12 patients had an elevated tumor radiance on CLI. Mean radiance and tumor-to-background ratio were 560 ± 160 photons/s/cm2/sr and 2.41 ± 0.54, respectively. All 15 assessable margins were clear on CLI and histopathology. The agreement in margin distance and interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.81 and 0.912, respectively). Sentinel lymph nodes were successfully detected in all patients. The radiation dose to staff was low; surgeons received a mean dose of 34 ± 15 µSv per procedure. Conclusion: Intraoperative 18F-FDG CLI is a promising, low-risk technique for intraoperative assessment of tumor margins in BCS. A randomized controlled trial will evaluate the impact of this technique on reexcision rates.

The cost of screening esophageal varices: traditional endoscopy versus computed tomography.

OBJECTIVE: Under current guidelines, patients diagnosed with cirrhosis are to undergo initial and continued screening endoscopy for esophageal varices throughout the course of disease. Recent literature suggests that computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is adequately sensitive for detecting grade 3 varices, those in need of immediate intervention. This study presents a cost comparison of traditional endoscopy versus CT of the abdomen. METHODS: Using TreeAge Pro software, a budget impact cost model was created for a hypothetical managed care organization covering 1 million lives over a 10-year period. Incidence figures for cirrhosis and the progression of esophageal varices were applied to the patient population. National Medicare reimbursement costs were used to compare screening with traditional endoscopy versus CT. Costs utilizing screening with combined endoscopy and CT were also examined. RESULTS: The results of comparing screening paradigms under a budget impact cost model results in an outcome measure termed "per-member, per-month" (PMPM) cost of implementing a new strategy. Computed tomography was the least expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1097.30 and PMPM of $0.03. Endoscopy was the most expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1464.89 and PMPM of $0.04. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography has been shown to be sensitive in detecting esophageal varices and now less costly to implement in screening. The cost of esophageal rupture in endoscopy and the less costly risk of contrast reaction as well as radiation exposure in CT of the abdomen should be considered when developing a screening paradigm.

Nanoparticles in sentinel lymph node assessment in breast cancer.

The modern management of the axilla in breast cancer relies on surgery for accurate staging of disease and identifying those patients at risk who would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. The introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy has revolutionized axillary surgery, but still involves a surgical procedure with associated morbidity in many patients with no axillary involvement. Nanotechnology encompasses a broad spectrum of scientific specialities, of which nanomedicine is one. The potential use of dual-purpose nanoprobes could enable imaging the axilla simultaneous identification and treatment of metastatic disease. Whilst most applications of nanomedicine are still largely in the laboratory phase, some potential applications are currently undergoing clinical evaluation for translation from the bench to the bedside. This is an exciting new area of research where scientific research may become a reality.