[18]F-fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine positron emission tomography for radiotherapy target delineation: Results from a Radiation Oncology credentialing program.

Background and purpose: The [18]F-fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine (FET) PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is an Australian prospective, multi-centre trial evaluating FET PET for newly diagnosed glioblastoma management. The Radiation Oncology credentialing program aimed to assess the feasibility in Radiation Oncologist (RO) derivation of standard-of-care target volumes (TVMR) and hybrid target volumes (TVMR+FET) incorporating pre-defined FET PET biological tumour volumes (BTVs). Materials and methods: Central review and analysis of TVMR and TVMR+FET was undertaken across three benchmarking cases. BTVs were pre-defined by a sole nuclear medicine expert. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) confidence intervals (CIs) evaluated volume agreement. RO contour spatial and boundary agreement were evaluated (Dice similarity coefficient [DSC], Jaccard index [JAC], overlap volume [OV], Hausdorff distance [HD] and mean absolute surface distance [MASD]). Dose plan generation (one case per site) was assessed. Results: Data from 19 ROs across 10 trial sites (54 initial submissions, 8 resubmissions requested, 4 conditional passes) was assessed with an initial pass rate of 77.8 %; all resubmissions passed. TVMR+FET were significantly larger than TVMR (p < 0.001) for all cases. RO gross tumour volume (GTV) agreement was moderate-to-excellent for GTVMR (ICC = 0.910; 95 % CI, 0.708-0.997) and good-to-excellent for GTVMR+FET (ICC = 0.965; 95 % CI, 0.871-0.999). GTVMR+FET showed greater spatial overlap and boundary agreement compared to GTVMR. For the clinical target volume (CTV), CTVMR+FET showed lower average boundary agreement versus CTVMR (MASD: 1.73 mm vs. 1.61 mm, p = 0.042). All sites passed the planning exercise. Conclusions: The credentialing program demonstrated feasibility in successful credentialing of 19 ROs across 10 sites, increasing national expertise in TVMR+FET delineation.

Delineation and agreement of FET PET biological volumes in glioblastoma: results of the nuclear medicine credentialing program from the prospective, multi-centre trial evaluating FET PET In Glioblastoma (FIG) study-TROG 18.06.

PURPOSE: The O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) trial is an Australian prospective, multi-centre study evaluating FET PET for glioblastoma patient management. FET PET imaging timepoints are pre-chemoradiotherapy (FET1), 1-month post-chemoradiotherapy (FET2), and at suspected progression (FET3). Before participant recruitment, site nuclear medicine physicians (NMPs) underwent credentialing of FET PET delineation and image interpretation. METHODS: Sites were required to complete contouring and dynamic analysis by ≥ 2 NMPs on benchmarking cases (n = 6) assessing biological tumour volume (BTV) delineation (3 × FET1) and image interpretation (3 × FET3). Data was reviewed by experts and violations noted. BTV definition includes tumour-to-background ratio (TBR) threshold of 1.6 with crescent-shaped background contour in the contralateral normal brain. Recurrence/pseudoprogression interpretation (FET3) required assessment of maximum TBR (TBRmax), dynamic analysis (time activity curve [TAC] type, time to peak), and qualitative assessment. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) assessed volume agreement, coefficient of variation (CoV) compared maximum/mean TBR (TBRmax/TBRmean) across cases, and pairwise analysis assessed spatial (Dice similarity coefficient [DSC]) and boundary agreement (Hausdorff distance [HD], mean absolute surface distance [MASD]). RESULTS: Data was accrued from 21 NMPs (10 centres, n ≥ 2 each) and 20 underwent review. The initial pass rate was 93/119 (78.2%) and 27/30 requested resubmissions were completed. Violations were found in 25/72 (34.7%; 13/12 minor/major) of FET1 and 22/74 (29.7%; 14/8 minor/major) of FET3 reports. The primary reasons for resubmission were as follows: BTV over-contour (15/30, 50.0%), background placement (8/30, 26.7%), TAC classification (9/30, 30.0%), and image interpretation (7/30, 23.3%). CoV median and range for BTV, TBRmax, and TBRmean were 21.53% (12.00-30.10%), 5.89% (5.01-6.68%), and 5.01% (3.37-6.34%), respectively. BTV agreement was moderate to excellent (ICC = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-0.97) with good spatial (DSC = 0.84 ± 0.09) and boundary (HD = 15.78 ± 8.30 mm; MASD = 1.47 ± 1.36 mm) agreement. CONCLUSION: The FIG study credentialing program has increased expertise across study sites. TBRmax and TBRmean were robust, with considerable variability in BTV delineation and image interpretation observed.

Personalising treatment plan quality review with knowledge-based planning in the TROG 15.03 trial for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in primary kidney cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Quality assurance (QA) of treatment plans in clinical trials improves protocol compliance and patient outcomes. Retrospective use of knowledge-based-planning (KBP) in clinical trials has demonstrated improved treatment plan quality and consistency. We report the results of prospective use of KBP for real-time QA of treatment plan quality in the TROG 15.03 FASTRACK II trial, which evaluates efficacy of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for kidney cancer. METHODS: A KBP model was generated based on single institution data. For each patient in the KBP phase (open to the last 31 patients in the trial), the treating centre submitted treatment plans 7 days prior to treatment. A treatment plan was created by using the KBP model, which was compared with the submitted plan for each organ-at-risk (OAR) dose constraint. A report comparing each plan for each OAR constraint was provided to the submitting centre within 24 h of receiving the plan. The centre could then modify the plan based on the KBP report, or continue with the existing plan. RESULTS: Real-time feedback using KBP was provided in 24/31 cases. Consistent plan quality was in general achieved between KBP and the submitted plan. KBP review resulted in replan and improvement of OAR dosimetry in two patients. All centres indicated that the feedback was a useful QA check of their treatment plan. CONCLUSION: KBP for real-time treatment plan review was feasible for 24/31 cases, and demonstrated ability to improve treatment plan quality in two cases. Challenges include integration of KBP feedback into clinical timelines, interpretation of KBP results with respect to clinical trade-offs, and determination of appropriate plan quality improvement criteria.