Comparison of T2 and FLAIR imaging for target delineation in high grade gliomas

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>FLAIR and T2 weighted MRIs are used based on institutional preference to delineate high grade gliomas and surrounding edema for radiation treatment planning. Although these sequences have inherent physical differences there is limited data on the clinical and dosimetric impact of using either or both sequences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>40 patients with high grade gliomas consecutively treated between 2002 and 2008 of which 32 had pretreatment MRIs with T1, T2 and FLAIR available for review were selected for this study. These MRIs were fused with the treatment planning CT. Normal structures, clinical tumor volume (CTV) and planning tumor volume (PTV) were then defined on the T2 and FLAIR sequences. A Venn diagram analysis was performed for each pair of tumor volumes as well as a fractional component analysis to assess the contribution of each sequence to the union volume. For each patient the tumor volumes were compared in terms of total volume in cubic centimeters as well as anatomic location using a discordance index. The overlap of the tumor volumes with critical structures was calculated as a measure of predicted toxicity. For patients with MRI documented failures, the tumor volumes obtained using the different sequences were compared with the recurrent gross tumor volume (rGTV).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The FLAIR CTVs and PTVs were significantly larger than the T2 CTVs and PTVs (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0001 respectively). Based on the discordance index, the abnormality identified using the different sequences also differed in location. Fractional component analysis showed that the intersection of the tumor volumes as defined on both T2 and FLAIR defined the majority of the union volume contributing 63.6% to the CTV union and 82.1% to the PTV union. T2 alone uniquely identified 12.9% and 5.2% of the CTV and PTV unions respectively while FLAIR alone uniquely identified 25.7% and 12% of the CTV and PTV unions respectively. There was no difference in predicted toxicity to normal structures using T2 or FLAIR. At the time of analysis, 26 failures had occurred of which 19 patients had MRIs documenting the recurrence. The rGTV correlated best with the FLAIR CTV but the percentage overlap was not significantly different from that with T2. There was no statistical difference in the percentage overlap with the rGTV and the PTVs generated using either T2 or FLAIR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although both T2 and FLAIR MRI sequences are used to define high grade glial neoplasm and surrounding edema, our results show that the volumes generated using these techniques are different and not interchangeable. These differences have bearing on the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and highly conformal treatment as well as on future clinical trials where the bias of using one technique over the other may influence the study outcome.</p

A dosimetric comparison of four treatment planning methods for high grade glioma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High grade gliomas (HGG) are typically treated with a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Three dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy treatment planning is still the main stay of treatment for these patients. New treatment planning methods suggest better dose distributions and organ sparing but their clinical benefit is unclear. The purpose of the current study was to compare normal tissue sparing and tumor coverage using four different radiotherapy planning methods in patients with high grade glioma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Three dimensional conformal (3D), sequential boost IMRT, integrated boost (IB) IMRT and Tomotherapy (TOMO) treatment plans were generated for 20 high grade glioma patients. T1 and T2 MRI abnormalities were used to define GTV and CTV with 2 and 2.5 cm margins to define PTV1 and PTV2 respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean dose to PTV2 but not to PTV1 was less then 95% of the prescribed dose with IB and IMRT plans. The mean doses to the optic chiasm and the ipsilateral globe were highest with 3D plans and least with IB plans. The mean dose to the contralateral globe was highest with TOMO plans. The mean of the integral dose (ID) to the brain was least with the IB plan and was lower with IMRT compared to 3D plans. The TOMO plans had the least mean D10 to the normal brain but higher mean D50 and D90 compared to IB and IMRT plans. The mean D10 and D50 but not D90 were significantly lower with the IMRT plans compared to the 3D plans.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>No single treatment planning method was found to be superior to all others and a personalized approach is advised for planning and treating high-grade glioma patients with radiotherapy. Integral dose did not reflect accurately the dose volume histogram (DVH) of the normal brain and may not be a good indicator of delayed radiation toxicity.</p

Chemoirradiation for glioblastoma multiforme: the national cancer institute experience.

Standard treatment for glioblastoma (GBM) is surgery followed by radiation (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ). While there is variability in survival based on several established prognostic factors, the prognostic utility of other factors such as tumor size and location are not well established.The charts of ninety two patients with GBM treated with RT at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) between 1998 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Most patients received RT with concurrent and adjuvant TMZ. Topographic locations were classified using preoperative imaging. Gross tumor volumes were contoured using treatment planning systems utilizing both pre-operative and post-operative MR imaging.At a median follow-up of 18.7 months, the median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was 17.9 and 7.6 months. Patients with the smallest tumors had a median OS of 52.3 months compared to 16.3 months among patients with the largest tumors, P = 0.006. The patients who received bevacizumab after recurrence had a median OS of 23.3 months, compared to 16.3 months in patients who did not receive it, P = 0.0284. The median PFS and OS in patients with periventricular tumors was 5.7 and 17.5 months, versus 8.9 and 23.3 months in patients with non-periventricular tumors, P = 0.005.Survival in our cohort was comparable to the outcome of the defining EORTC-NCIC trial establishing the use of RT+TMZ. This study also identifies several potential prognostic factors that may be useful in stratifying patients

Overall survival of patients who received bevacizumab after progression compared to those who didn’t.

<p>Patients receiving bevacizumab had a median OS of 23.3 months (95% CI: 17.1–35.6), compared to 16.3 months (95% CI: 13.8–25.1) in patients who did not receive it, <i>P = 0.0284.</i></p

Tumor Location.

<p>Abbreviations: PV, periventricular: GTR, gross total resection; STR, sub-total resection.</p

Patient and Tumor Characteristics.

<p>Abbreviations: KPS, Karnofsky Performance Status; W, Working; NW, Not working; RPA, Recursive Partitioning Analysis; RT, Radiation Therapy. Patient demographics, treatment details, and characteristics of primary tumor before surgery/chemoirradiation.</p

Bevacizumab Usage at Recurrence.

<p>Abbreviations: GTR, gross total resection; STR, sub-total resection.</p