Browsing All Christie Publications by Authors
Comparison of whole-body MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for response evaluation of cancer therapeutics in metastatic breast cancer to boneKosmin, M.; Padhani, A. R.; Gogbashian, A.; Woolf, David K; Ah-See, M. L.; Ostler, P.; Sutherland, S.; Miles, D.; Noble, J.; Koh, D. M.; et al. (2020)Background CT and bone scintigraphy have limitations in evaluating systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) response in bone metastases from metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Purpose To evaluate whether whole-body MRI enables identification of progressive disease (PD) earlier than CT and bone scintigraphy in bone-only MBC. Materials and Methods This prospective study evaluated participants with bone-only MBC between May 2016 and January 2019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03266744). Participants were enrolled at initiation of first or subsequent SACT based on standard CT and bone scintigraphy imaging. Baseline whole-body MRI was performed within 2 weeks of entry; those with extraosseous disease were excluded. CT and whole-body MRI were performed every 12 weeks until definitive PD was evident with one or both modalities. In case of PD, bone scintigraphy was used to assess for bone disease progression. Radiologists independently interpreted images from CT, whole-body MRI, or bone scintigraphy and were blinded to results with the other modalities. Systematic differences in performance between modalities were analyzed by using the McNemar test. Results Forty-five participants (mean age, 60 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; all women) were evaluated. Median time on study was 36 weeks (range, 1-120 weeks). Two participants were excluded because of unequivocal evidence of liver metastases at baseline whole-body MRI, two participants were excluded because they had clinical progression before imaging showed PD, and one participant was lost to follow-up. Of the 33 participants with PD at imaging, 67% (22 participants) had PD evident at whole-body MRI only and 33% (11 participants) had PD at CT and whole-body MRI concurrently; none had PD at CT only (P < .001, McNemar test). There was only slight agreement between whole-body MRI and CT (Cohen ?, 0.15). PD at bone scintigraphy was reported in 50% of participants (13 of 26) with bone progression at CT and/or whole-body MRI (P < .001, McNemar test). Conclusion Whole-body MRI enabled identification of progressive disease before CT in most participants with bone-only metastatic breast cancer. Progressive disease at bone scintigraphy was evident in only half of participants with bone progression at whole-body MRI. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material
Sacral insufficiency fracture following pelvic radiotherapy in gynaecological malignancies: development of a predictive modelMir, R.; Dragan, A. D.; Mistry, H. B.; Tsang, Y. M.; Padhani, A. R.; Hoskin, Peter J; Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance (RTTQA) Group, UK. (2020)Aims: To investigate the time-to-event and the evolution of sacral insufficiency fractures in gynaecological patients receiving pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in relation to dosimetric and imaging parameters across a spectrum of radiotherapy delivery techniques, and to develop a predictive model with a clinical nomogram to identify those at risk of sacral insufficiency fracture. Materials and methods: Patients who received radical or adjuvant pelvic EBRT for gynaecological malignancy between 2014 and 2019 were identified. The data collected were: demographics and clinical details; radiotherapy planning data: dose, fractionation, technique (fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive arc, and non-adaptive arc), 60 Gy simultaneous integrated boost. Each plan was examined to determine the sacral dose in 5%/Gy3 increments. Follow-up magnetic resonance scans were reviewed for insufficiency fractures, defined as linear low T1-weighted signal intensity with a high short-T1 inversion recovery (STIR) signal. The site of insufficiency fracture was recreated on the planning computed tomography, the dose to insufficiency fracture contours was recorded and insufficiency fractures were determined as healed with resolution of high STIR signal. Univariable analysis was conducted of the clinical variables. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and odds ratio of the risk prediction model with 95% confidence interval are reported with a nomogram for use in clinical practice. Results: 115 patients were identified; the median imaging follow-up was 12 months (2-47). 37.4% developed sacral insufficiency fractures; 93.0% were detected within 12 months of EBRT. At the final radiological follow-up, 83.7% of insufficiency fractures remained active. The radiotherapy delivery technique was not associated with insufficiency fracture after adjusting for patient age (P = 0.115). The location of the 60 Gy simultaneous integrated boost planning target volume did not impact upon the site of insufficiency fracture or the dose received by the insufficiency fracture sites. Age and V40Gy3 are predictors for insufficiency fracture and form the clinical risk model (receiver operator characteristic 0.72). Conclusions: Age and V40Gy3 predict sacral insufficiency fractures; future work should focus on optimising radiotherapy planning with adoption of a bone-sparing planning approach for those patients at high risk of insufficiency fracture.