Glioblastoma radiomics: can genomic and molecular characteristics correlate with imaging response patterns?

PURPOSE: For glioblastoma (GBM), imaging response (IR) or pseudoprogression (PSP) is frequently observed after chemoradiation and may connote a favorable prognosis. With tumors categorized by the Cancer Genome Atlas Project (mesenchymal, classical, neural, and proneural) and by methylguanine-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation status, we attempted to determine if certain genomic or molecular subtypes of GBM were specifically associated with IR or PSP. METHODS: Patients with GBM treated at two institutions were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Mantel-cox test determined effect of IR and PSP on OS and PFS. Fisher's exact test was utilized to correlate IR and PSP with genomic subtypes and MGMT status. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients with GBM were reviewed. The median OS and PFS were 17.9 months and 8.9 months. IR was observed in 28 (40%) and was associated with improved OS (median 29.4 vs 14.5 months p < 0.01) and PFS (median 17.7 vs 5.5 months, p < 0.01). PSP was observed in 14 (19.2%) and trended towards improved PFS (15.0 vs 7.7 months p = 0.08). Tumors with a proneural component had a higher rate of IR compared to those without a proneural component (IR 60% vs 28%; p = 0.03). MGMT methylation was associated with IR (58% vs 24%, p = 0.032), but not PSP (34%, p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: IR is associated with improved OS and PFS. The proneural subtype and MGMT methylated tumors had higher rates of IR.

Tumor resection with carmustine wafer placement as salvage therapy after local failure of radiosurgery for brain metastasis.

Prolonged survival in brain metastasis patients increases recurrence rates and places added importance on salvage therapies. Research examining carmustine polymer wafers as an adjuvant therapy for brain metastasis is limited. We present a single institution retrospective series documenting the use of BCNU wafers placed in the cavity of resected recurrent brain metastases that had failed prior stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Between February 2002 and April 2013, a total of 31 patients with brain metastases failed SRS and underwent resection with intracavitary placement of carmustine wafers. Clinical outcomes including local control, survival, cause of death, and toxicity were determined from electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess local control and survival. Imaging features were reviewed and described for patients with serial post-operative follow-up imaging examinations over time. Overall survival at 6 months and 12 months was 63% and 36%, respectively. Fourteen of 31 patients (45%) died from neurologic causes. Local control within the resection cavity was 87% and 70% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Five patients (16%) underwent further salvage therapy following carmustine wafer placement after local failure. Resection cavities of all six patients with follow-up imaging showed linear peripheral enhancement. Pericavity and wafer enhancement was present as early as the same day as surgery and persisted in all cases to 6 months or longer. Carmustine polymer wafers are an effective salvage treatment following resection of a brain metastasis that has failed prior SRS. For patients with successful local control after wafer implantation, linear enhancement at the cavity is common.

Limited margins using modern radiotherapy techniques does not increase marginal failure rate of glioblastoma.

OBJECTIVE: We investigate the patterns of failure in the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM) based on clinical target volume (CTV) margin size, dose delivered to the site of initial failure, and the use of temozolomide and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS: Between August 2000 and May 2010, 161 patients with GBM were treated with radiotherapy with or without concurrent temozolomide. Patients were treated with CTV expansions that ranged from 5 to 20 mm using a shrinking field technique. Patterns of failure and time to progression and overall survival were compared based on CTV margin, use of temozolomide, and use of IMRT. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to estimate survival times, and χ test was used for comparison of cohorts. RESULTS: For patients treated with 5-, 10-, and 15- to 20-mm CTV, 79%, 77%, and 86% experienced failures in the 60 Gy volume, respectively. Forty-eight percent, 55%, and 66% of patients with 5-, 10-, and 15- to 20-mm CTV experienced failures in the 46 Gy volume, respectively. There was no statistical difference between patients treated with 5-, 10-, 15- to 20-mm margins with regard to 60 Gy failure (P=0.76), 46 Gy failure (P=0.51), or marginal failure (P=0.73). Eighty percent of patients receiving temozolomide experienced failures in the 60 Gy volume. There was no increased likelihood of marginal failures in patients receiving IMRT (P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Modern treatment techniques including use of concurrent temozolmide, limited CTV margin size, and IMRT have not greatly changed the patterns of failure of GBM.

7.0-T magnetic resonance imaging characterization of acute blood-brain-barrier disruption achieved with intracranial irreversible electroporation.

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) presents a significant obstacle to the delivery of systemically administered chemotherapeutics for the treatment of brain cancer. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is an emerging technology that uses pulsed electric fields for the non-thermal ablation of tumors. We hypothesized that there is a minimal electric field at which BBB disruption occurs surrounding an IRE-induced zone of ablation and that this transient response can be measured using gadolinium (Gd) uptake as a surrogate marker for BBB disruption. The study was performed in a Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) compliant facility and had Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval. IRE ablations were performed in vivo in normal rat brain (n = 21) with 1-mm electrodes (0.45 mm diameter) separated by an edge-to-edge distance of 4 mm. We used an ECM830 pulse generator to deliver ninety 50-µs pulse treatments (0, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 V/cm) at 1 Hz. The effects of applied electric fields and timing of Gd administration (-5, +5, +15, and +30 min) was assessed by systematically characterizing IRE-induced regions of cell death and BBB disruption with 7.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and histopathologic evaluations. Statistical analysis on the effect of applied electric field and Gd timing was conducted via Fit of Least Squares with α = 0.05 and linear regression analysis. The focal nature of IRE treatment was confirmed with 3D MRI reconstructions with linear correlations between volume of ablation and electric field. Our results also demonstrated that IRE is an ablation technique that kills brain tissue in a focal manner depicted by MRI (n = 16) and transiently disrupts the BBB adjacent to the ablated area in a voltage-dependent manner as seen with Evan's Blue (n = 5) and Gd administration.

Clinical outcomes of brain metastases treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery with 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI-based treatment planning: have we finally optimised detection of occult brain metastases?

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to determine if clinically relevant endpoints were changed by improved MRI resolution during radiosurgical treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2003 and 2008, 200 consecutive patients with brain metastases treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) using either 1.5 T or 3.0 T MRI for radiosurgical treatment planning were retrospectively analysed. The number of previously undetected metastases at time of radiosurgery, distant brain failures, time delay to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), overall survival and likelihood of neurological death were determined. RESULTS: Additional metastases were detected in 31.3% and 24.5% of patients at time of radiosurgery with 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI, respectively (P = 0.27). Patients with multiple metastases at diagnostic scan were more likely to have additional metastases detected by 3.0 T MRI (P < 0.1). Median time to distant brain failure was 4.87 months and 5.43 months for the 3.0 T and 1.5 T cohorts, respectively (P = 0.44). Median time to WBRT was 5.8 months and 5.3 months for the 3.0 T and 1.5 T cohorts, respectively (P = 0.87). Median survival was 6.4 months for the 3.0 T cohort, and 6.1 months for the 1.5 T cohort (P = 0.71). Likelihood of neurological death was 25.3% and 16.7% for the 3.0 and 1.5 T populations, respectively (P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0 T MRI-based treatment planning for GKRS did not appear to affect the likelihood of distant brain failure, the need for WBRT or the likelihood of neurological death in this series.

Access to radiologic reports via a patient portal: clinical simulations to investigate patient preferences.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine (1) the patient-preferred timing characteristics of a system for online patient access to radiologic reports and (2) patient resource needs and preferences after exposure to reports. METHODS: Adult outpatients from a single imaging center completed researcher-administered electronic questionnaires. Participants were exposed to 3 simulated clinical scenarios and asked to answer questions on the basis of what they thought they would do in each. Scenarios included symptomatology and written radiology reports that were nearly normal, seriously abnormal, and indeterminate, with reports containing typical medical terminology. Participants were asked about preferred timing for online access to reports, communication methods, educational resources, and alternative formats. McNemar's test correlated proportions and generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate responses. RESULTS: Participants (n = 53) most often preferred immediate access to reports: 32 (60.2%) for the nearly normal scenario, 25 (47.2%) for the seriously abnormal scenario, and 24 (45.3%) for the indeterminate scenario. Three-day delayed access was next most commonly preferred: 15 (28.3%), 19 (35.8%), and 19 (35.8%), respectively. Forty-two participants (79.2%) preferred the portal method of notification over ways they have historically gotten results, with an increased proportion being satisfied with it overall (P < .04). Most would use a variety of educational resources and found alternative lay language conclusions and hyperlinks helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Some outpatients want immediate online access to complete, written radiologic reports and would use multiple resources to understand report contents. Effects of immediate access on provider workflow and on anxiety and autonomy among a diverse population of patients still need to be studied.

A Simple QI Project to Improve Practice Quality in Neuroradiological CT Angiography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was continuous quality improvement (CQI) of head and neck CT angiography (CTA) in the neuroradiology practice of a tertiary care medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted baseline quality audits of 50 consecutive head or neck CTAs, including referrals for a variety of indications from emergency department, ambulatory, and inpatient settings. Neuroradiologists as a group used Likert-type questionnaire items to assess scan quality. Based on identified opportunities for CQI, the group evaluated alternative scanning methods, proposed action items, and implemented changes in scanning methods. After implementing the changes, the group performed follow-up quality audits of 61 consecutive CTAs. Quality of scans was compared for baseline and postimplementation patients using chi-square or McNemar tests. RESULTS: Several key opportunities for CQI were identified, namely related to coverage levels and timing. These opportunities were translated into protocol changes, standardization of methods, and in-service sessions to implement specific process changes. Using a Likert-type scale with 1 anchored at "excellent" and 5 at "poor," the overall quality of CTAs improved from 2.46 at baseline to 1.64 after implementation of QI measures (P < .01). There were significant improvements in timing and coverage, and fewer scans required quality disclaimers after CQI implementation. CONCLUSION: Using basic CQI techniques of assessment, analysis, change implementation, and reassessment, the quality of CTA scans in a busy neuroradiology clinical practice can be improved. These techniques are amenable to repeated use, so that CQI can be a routine practice to help optimize the quality of care in radiology.

Use of 3.0-T MRI for stereotactic radiosurgery planning for treatment of brain metastases: a single-institution retrospective review.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting brain metastases for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All adult patients scheduled for SRS treatment for brain metastases at our institution between October 2005 and January 2008 were eligible for analysis. All patients underwent radiosurgery treatment planning 3.0-T MRI on the day of scheduled radiosurgery and a diagnostic 1.5-T MRI in the days or weeks prior to radiosurgery for comparison. Both scans were interpreted by neuroradiologists who reported their findings in the radiology reports. We performed a retrospective review of the radiology reports to determine the number of brain metastases identified using each MRI system. RESULTS: Of 254 patients scheduled for treatment from October 2005 to January 2008, 138 patients had radiology reports that explicitly described the number of metastases identified on both scans. With a median interval of 17 days (range, 1-82) between scans, the number of metastases detected using 1.5-T MRI system ranged from 1 to 5 and from 1 to 8 using the 3.0 T-MRI system. Twenty-two percent of patients were found to have a greater number of metastases with the 3.0 T-MRI system. The difference in number of metastases detected between the two scans for the entire cohort ranged from 0 to 6. Neither histology (p = 0.52 by chi-sq test) nor time between scans (p = 0.62 by linear regression) were significantly associated with the difference in number of metastases between scans. CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T MRI system appears to be superior to a 1.5-T MRI system for detecting brain metastases, which may have significant implications in determining the appropriate treatment modality. Our findings suggest the need for a prospectively designed study to further evaluate the use of a 3.0 T-MRI system for stereotactic radiosurgery planning in the treatment of brain metastases.

Radiology report clarity: a cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine if radiology residents who use a structured reporting system (SRS) produce reports of greater clarity than residents who use free-text dictation to report cranial MR imaging in patients with clinical suspicion of stroke. METHODS: This double-cohort study included residents creating reports for 25 cranial MR imaging studies using an SRS in the intervention group and free text in the control group (report n = 1,685). Attending physicians from multiple subspecialties were surveyed seeking clarity ratings of randomly selected reports. Two neuroradiology fellows rated the clarity of 180 of the reports. Clarity ratings were analyzed by using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired data and the Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data. RESULTS: Forty-three of 95 surveyed physicians returned completed surveys, with mean clarity ratings for SRS (4.9) and free-text (5.1) reports that did not differ significantly. Respondents' comments most often referred to confusing syntax, unfamiliar terms, or format preferences. Fellow raters rated the clarity of SRS reports lower than that of free-text reports (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an SRS to create MRI reports did not seem to improve or worsen attending physicians' perceptions of report clarity. Experience level may affect clarity-related report preferences. Future SRS should probably include definitions of key terms and be formatted to minimize syntactical errors.

Patient access to radiology reports: what do physicians think?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to seek physicians' perspectives on radiology reporting systems, so that reporting systems can begin to be reorganized and made more patient centered by giving patients greater access to their personal health information. METHODS: Focus-group methodology was used to explore physicians' views on direct patient access to radiologic test results. Subjects for the two groups were physicians at a single academic medical center. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants were dissatisfied with current reporting systems. Both radiologists and referring physicians (RPs) were aware that patients are not satisfied with the current system for notification of radiologic test results, and both thought that patients should have access to personal health information and take responsibility for their own health care. Regarding direct patient online access to results, both radiologists and RPs were concerned that patients would not understand report contents and that such access would lead to greater patient anxiety and demands on RPs' time. Referring physicians were also concerned that direct patient access to results would cause RPs to lose some control in the patient-physician relationship. Both radiologists and RPs preferred that any system for direct patient access incorporate a time delay and be tested for effect before being implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Revisions attempting to increase the patient-centeredness of care in the area of radiology reporting should be developed and tested to 1) minimize adverse effects on patient anxiety; 2) optimize timing, considering effects on both patients and RPs; and 3) simultaneously address problems with between-physician reporting methods.

Insight from patients for radiologists: improving our reporting systems.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to seek patients' perspectives on radiology reporting systems, so that reporting systems can begin to be reorganized and made more patient-centered by giving patients greater access to their personal health information. METHODS: Focus group methodology was used to explore which aspects of radiology information are important to patients and to identify their preferred means of access to and format of this information. Subjects for the two groups were outpatients who had recently undergone MR imaging at a single academic medical center. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Most subjects were dissatisfied with current reporting systems, citing delays and a lack of detail as the most important problems. Subjects varied with regard to preferences for who should relay results to them, with some expressing a desire for increased direct input from radiologists because they have greater expertise in imaging interpretation. Most subjects wanted results in writing and in detail, with attached lay language explanations, though a few subjects preferred less detail. Subjects were decidedly in favor of having the option to access results immediately via an online system, proposing some potential problems and potentially multiple benefits of such a system. CONCLUSIONS: Whatever system revisions are attempted to increase the patient-centeredness of care as regards to radiology reporting, patients will need to be able to choose their preferred levels of access and will need to have the option of accessing full details.

Lumbar split cord malformation with lateral hemimyelomeningocele and associated Chiari II malformation and other visceral and osseous anomalies: a case report.

Split cord malformation and lateral hemimyelomeningocele are 2 rare spinal anomalies, which were both discovered in a female newborn. The constellation of anomalies is presented in the setting of Chiari II malformation. Cross-sectional imaging of the salient abnormalities in the form of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging along with 3-dimensional and multiplanar reformatting is highlighted.

Decreasing pediatric patient anxiety about radiology imaging tests: prospective evaluation of an educational intervention.

This trial investigated anxiety levels and effect of an educational coloring book (CB) among pediatric patients about to undergo radiology imaging tests. Control group (N = 101) and intervention group (N = 175) children ages 3-10 years and their parents were surveyed to determine anxiety levels before the imaging test, with the intervention group being surveyed after patient and parental review of the CB. Anxiety was low for all subjects overall compared with findings from previously published literature, perhaps related to systemic measures to make children's hospitals more child friendly in recent years. Review of the CB was not associated with decreased anxiety among patients or parents. However, among a subgroup with higher baseline parental anxiety, there was a trend toward lower patient anxiety in the intervention group. Most parents indicated that the CB was informative and helped them and their child be less worried, and that they were pleased to have received the CB.

Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation.

PURPOSE: To determine if radiology residents who used a structured reporting system (SRS) produced higher quality reports than residents who used conventional free-text dictation to report cranial magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in patients suspected of having a stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by an institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant; informed consent was obtained. This study included residents, with 16 in the control group and 18 in the intervention group. For phase 1, each subject reviewed the same set of 25 brain MR imaging cases and dictated the cases by using free-text conventional dictation. For phase 2, 4 months later, the control group repeated the same process, whereas the intervention group reread the same MR imaging cases by using SRS to create reports. Resident-generated reports were graded for accuracy and completeness by a neuroradiologist on the basis of consensus interpretations and criterion standard diagnoses as established with at least 6 months of clinical follow-up, imaging follow-up, and/or histologic examination where appropriate. Accuracy and completeness scores were analyzed by using a Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data and a Mann-Whitney U test for nonpaired data. Intervention group residents were surveyed regarding their opinions of SRS. RESULTS: For phase 1 reports, no significant difference in accuracy or completeness scores between control and intervention groups was found. Decreases in accuracy (91.5 to 88.7) and completeness (68.7 to 54.3) scores for phase 2 compared with phase 1 for the intervention group were found; increases in accuracy (91.4 to 92.4) and completeness (67.8 to 71.7) scores for phase 2 compared with phase 1 for the control group were found (all P values < .001). The most common complaints were that the SRS was overly constraining with regard to report content and was time-consuming to use. CONCLUSION: While there are many potential benefits of structuring radiology reports, such changes cannot be assumed to improve report accuracy or completeness. Any SRS should be tested for effect on intrinsic report quality.

Web-based results distribution: new channels of communication from radiologists to patients.

Radiologists face substantial challenges in the timely and appropriate communication of diagnostic test results. As with other systems in health care delivery, the radiology reporting system is not designed to be optimally safe, timely, and patient centered. To improve the quality of care, there must be a new commitment to organizing services around patients' needs, including the reporting of diagnostic test results directly from radiologists to patients. The rationale for this change is that if both referring physicians and patients are given imaging examination results from radiologists immediately after their interpretation, it would be less likely that important diagnostic information would be lost or overlooked. The results would be provided to all stakeholders in a more timely fashion, the potential for important information to "fall through the cracks" would be diminished, and safety would be improved. Providing these results to patients directly online would also allow radiologists to facilitate increased patient satisfaction and patient-centered care by treating patients as "co-customers" and equal partners with referring physicians with regard to access to information and shared decision making.

Improving the quality of radiology reporting: a physician survey to define the target.

PURPOSE: Our long-term goal is to improve the quality of reports in radiology imaging interpretation. The rationale for this project focused on identifying the characteristics of a high-quality report from the perspective of referring physicians and radiologists. METHODS: We undertook a survey of physician faculty at a large Midwestern academic medical center (including university, children's, veteran's, county and private practice hospitals) regarding radiology report quality concepts. RESULTS: Using a 5-point Likert scale, >95% of respondents indicated the highest importance rating (score=5) for radiology report characteristic "Accurate," with mean score of 4.94. Seventy-eight to 83% of respondents considered "Clear," "Complete" and "Timely" to have the highest importance rating, with means of these scores between 4.73 and 4.79. Somewhat less desirable characteristics included "Well-organized" and "Mentions pertinent negatives"-though radiologists tended to think the latter was less important than did all other categories of physician respondents. The single greatest problem area in reporting is lack of timeliness. Using a 10-point Likert scale, respondents gave a median score of seven for overall satisfaction with current reporting. CONCLUSIONS: For high-quality radiology reporting, accuracy is most important. Clarity, completeness and timeliness are also very important. Radiologists tend to consider mentioning pertinent negatives as less important than do referring physicians; otherwise, respondents from different specialties largely agreed on which characteristics are most important for high-quality reports. There is room for improvement in physician satisfaction with radiology reporting.

From traditional reading rooms to a soft copy environment: radiologist satisfaction survey.

Academic radiologists are experiencing increased clinical workloads. New technology such as picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are often justified on the premise of increased efficiency. The authors believe that efficiency can be influenced by the image interpretation environment, and thus they set out to establish baseline satisfaction levels with this environment. The authors surveyed 90 Indiana University (IU) faculty radiologists, fellows, and residents. Their survey was implemented with a questionnaire sent via e-mail. Questions focused on satisfaction with the current soft-copy reading environments and preferences regarding improvements. Of the 90 radiologists surveyed, 55 (61%) responded. Several key findings emerged: (1) Overall satisfaction with the soft-copy environment is low, with nearly half (46%) of respondents rating themselves as "very dissatisfied" or "dissatisfied." (2) Faculty are least satisfied regarding work space ergonomics, room layout, and amount of work space. Appropriate lighting also emerged as an area with low satisfaction and high importance. (3) Ninety-eight percent of respondents indicated that an "ideal" soft-copy environment would have a positive effect on their efficiency. The dissatisfaction with the current soft-copy interpretation environments used by the IU radiologists indicates that this is an area that requires attention. Furthermore, there may be a direct relationship between radiologist efficiency and satisfaction with the image interpretation environment. Attention should be focused on this environment during a soft-copy technology implementation to ensure that planned efficiency gains are realized.

American Society of Neuroradiology research survey 2001.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Research is a critical component of the mission of academic radiology, and success in research is necessary for the future of neuroradiology. Thus, the authors set out to establish a baseline of research activities of American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors surveyed 100 fellowship program directors. The survey was Web based, with recruitment from the ASNR Fellowship Database survey site and with e-mail and fax solicitations to the Web site. Questions focused on neuroradiologist and neuroradiology fellow involvement in research. RESULTS: Forty-eight of the 100 program directors (48%) responded. Several key findings emerged: (a) About one-third of fellowship programs require all fellows to do some research, with most fellows receiving less than 1 day per week of academic time; (b) just over half of the programs expect fellows to publish a paper; (c) about two-thirds of academic neuroradiologists get at least 1 academic day per week; (d) most academic neuroradiologists perform research, but most of this research is unfunded; and (e) about nine of 10 academic sections have at least one neuroradiologist with some extramural funding. CONCLUSION: The relative lack of extramural funding among academic neuroradiologists is a reality that is probably multifactorial; however, there may be a direct relationship between amount of academic time free from clinical duties and successful competition for funding. The time (and, thus, financial) support of research-oriented fellows and faculty should be increased.