Traughber, Bryan

Ever since its introduction as a diagnostic imaging tool the potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiation therapy (RT) treatment simulation and planning has been recognized. Recent technical advances have addressed many of the impediments to use of this technology and as a result have resulted in rapid and growing adoption of MRI in RT. The purpose of this article is to provide a broad review of the multiple uses of MR in the RT treatment simulation and planning process, identify several of the most used clinical scenarios in which MR is integral to the simulation and planning process, highlight existing limitations and provide multiple unmet needs thereby highlighting opportunities for the diagnostic MR imaging community to contribute and collaborate with our oncology colleagues.Evidence Level5Technical EfficacyStage 5

Background: In this study, the utilization rates and survival outcomes of different radiotherapy techniques are compared in prostate cancer (PCa) patients stratified by risk group. Methods: We analyzed an extensive data set of N0, M0, non-surgical PCa patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were grouped into six categories based on RT modality: an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) group with brachytherapy (BT) boost, IMRT with/without IMRT boost, proton therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT LDR), and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT HDR). Patients were also stratified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines: low-risk (clinical stage T1–T2a, Gleason Score (GS) ≤ 6, and Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) < 10), intermediate-risk (clinical stage T2b or T2c, GS of 7, or PSA of 10–20), and high-risk (clinical stage T3–T4, or GS of 8–10, or PSA > 20). Overall survival (OS) probability was determined using a Kaplan–Meier estimator. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by risk group for the six treatment modalities. Results: The most utilized treatment modality for all PCa patients was IMRT (53.1%). Over the years, a steady increase in SBRT utilization was observed, whereas BT HDR usage declined. IMRT-treated patient groups exhibited relatively lower survival probability in all risk categories. A slightly better survival probability was observed for the proton therapy group. Hormonal therapy was used for a large number of patients in all risk groups. Conclusion: This study revealed that IMRT was the most common treatment modality for PCa patients. Brachytherapy, SBRT, and IMRT+BT exhibited similar survival rates, whereas proton showed slightly better overall survival across the three risk groups. However, analysis of the demographics indicates that these differences are at least in part due to selection bias.

Abstract Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is an oncologic emergency and if left untreated, permanent paralysis will ensue. The treatment of MESCC is governed by disease, patient, and treatment factors. Patient's preferences and goals of care are to be weighed into the treatment plan. Ideally, a patient with MESCC is evaluated by an interdisciplinary team promptly to determine the urgency of the clinical scenario. Treatment recommendations must take into consideration the risk-benefit profiles of surgical intervention and radiotherapy for the particular individual's circumstance, including neurologic status, performance status, extent of epidural disease, stability of the spine, extra-spinal disease status, and life expectancy. In patients with high spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) or retropulsion of bone fragments in the spinal canal, surgical intervention should be strongly considered. The rate of development of motor deficits from spinal cord compression may be a prognostic factor for ultimate functional outcome, and should be taken into account when a treatment recommendation is made. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.