Application of nnU-Net for Automatic Segmentation of Lung Lesions on CT Images and Its Implication for Radiomic Models.

Radiomics investigates the predictive role of quantitative parameters calculated from radiological images. In oncology, tumour segmentation constitutes a crucial step of the radiomic workflow. Manual segmentation is time-consuming and prone to inter-observer variability. In this study, a state-of-the-art deep-learning network for automatic segmentation (nnU-Net) was applied to computed tomography images of lung tumour patients, and its impact on the performance of survival radiomic models was assessed. In total, 899 patients were included, from two proprietary and one public datasets. Different network architectures (2D, 3D) were trained and tested on different combinations of the datasets. Automatic segmentations were compared to reference manual segmentations performed by physicians using the DICE similarity coefficient. Subsequently, the accuracy of radiomic models for survival classification based on either manual or automatic segmentations were compared, considering both hand-crafted and deep-learning features. The best agreement between automatic and manual contours (DICE = 0.78 ± 0.12) was achieved averaging 2D and 3D predictions and applying customised post-processing. The accuracy of the survival classifier (ranging between 0.65 and 0.78) was not statistically different when using manual versus automatic contours, both with hand-crafted and deep features. These results support the promising role nnU-Net can play in automatic segmentation, accelerating the radiomic workflow without impairing the models' accuracy. Further investigations on different clinical endpoints and populations are encouraged to confirm and generalise these findings

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [$^{177}$Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [$^{223}$Ra]RaCl$_{2}$ remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [$^{18F}$]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [$^{177}$Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. PATIENT SUMMARY There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5:Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications.OBJECTIVE: We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy.CONCLUSIONS: There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community.PATIENT SUMMARY: There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.</p

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5 : Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This research was funded by the EANM and supported by unrestricted grants from Advanced Accelerator Applications—a Novartis company, Monrol, Spectrum Dynamics Medical Ltd., Blue Earth Diagnostics, GE HealthCare, ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE, Siemens Healthineers, and Telix Pharmaceuticals. These sponsors had no direct or indirect influence on the programme and content of the EANM Focus 5 meeting and the writing or content of this consensus statement. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Evelyn Mansutti, Susanne Koebe, Andrea Csismazia, Jutta Peter, Petra Neubauer, Andreas Felser, and Henrik Silber (all from EANM) for project management. We also acknowledge all who participated in EANM Focus 5 meeting and especially the patients who participated in clinical and research projects, making it possible to inform expert opinion.Peer reviewe

Low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) as monotherapy for early stage prostate cancer in Italy: practice and outcome analysis in a series of 2237 patients from 11 institutions

OBJECTIVE: Low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) in localized prostate cancer is available since 15 years in Italy. We realized the first national multicentre and multidisciplinary data collection to evaluate LDR-BT practice, given as monotherapy, and outcome in terms of biochemical failure. METHODS: Between May 1998 and December 2011, 2237 patients with early-stage prostate cancer from 11 Italian community and academic hospitals were treated with iodine-125 ((125)I) or palladium-103 LDR-BT as monotherapy and followed up for at least 2 years. (125)I seeds were implanted in 97.7% of the patients: the mean dose received by 90% of target volume was 145 Gy; the mean target volume receiving 100% of prescribed dose (V100) was 91.1%. Biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression were used to evaluate the relationship of covariates with outcomes. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 65 months. 5- and 7-year DSS, OS and BFFS were 99 and 98%, 94 and 89%, and 92 and 88%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network score (p < 0.0001) and V100 (p = 0.09) were correlated with BFFS, with V100 effect significantly different between patients at low risk and those at intermediate/high risk (p = 0.04). Short follow-up and lack of toxicity data represent the main limitations for a global evaluation of LDR-BT. CONCLUSION: This first multicentre Italian report confirms LDR-BT as an excellent curative modality for low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Multidisciplinary teams may help to select adequately patients to be treated with brachytherapy, with a direct impact on the implant quality and, possibly, on outcome

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer

Background: In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. Objective: We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. Design, setting, and participants: The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. Results and limitations: After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. Conclusions: There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. Patient summary: There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5 : consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND : In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostatespecific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE : We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTCIPANTS : The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS : Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS : After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS : There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. PATIENT SUMMARY : There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.The EANM and supported by unrestricted grants from Advanced Accelerator Applications—a Novartis company, Monrol, Spectrum Dynamics Medical Ltd., Blue Earth Diagnostics, GE HealthCare, ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE, Siemens Healthineers, and Telix Pharmaceuticals.http;//www.europeanurology.comam2024Nuclear MedicineSDG-03:Good heatlh and well-bein

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I : Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.publishedVersionPeer reviewe