Purpose Clinician inexperience, intra–observer and inter–observer variations in tumour definition may affect staging, radiotherapy target definition, and treatment outcomes, particularly in rare cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation between semi–automated methods of primary anal cancer (AC) definition and our current clinical standard of manual clinician definition using 18F–FDG–PET imaging and to provide recommendations for clinical use. Methods All patients referred for chemoradiotherapy for AC between 2012 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled, with all 18F–FDG–PET imaging acquired within one year of chemoradiotherapy collected. Three methods of primary AC definition were performed on all PET datasets. Manual definition by an experienced radiologist was considered the clinical standard for comparison of volume and coincidence (Dice coefficient) in our study. Semi–automated techniques assessed included a gradient–based SUV (SUV–gradient) method and a SUV threshold method with a range of thresholds relative to SUVmax (40 (T40), 50 (T50) and 60% (T60)). Results Ten patients were enrolled with 33 PET study sets available for analysis. While all methods created contours on pre– and post–treatment scans, manual definition of PET–avid disease was only necessary on 11 of the 33 study sets. SUV–gradient and T40 defined contours were not statistically different in volume to the clinical standard (p = 0.83 & 0.72 respectively). The observed Dice coefficient relative to the manual clinician contours were 0.75 and 0.73 for the SUV–gradient and T40 methods respectively. Conclusions It is possible to define gross AC using SUV–based methods, with the SUV–gradient–based method followed by the T40 method most closely correlating with our current clinical standard. The SUV–gradient–based method studied is housed within a proprietary clinical system. A semi–automated approach that uses a vendor neutral T40 method and the clinician’s knowledge and skill appears optimal in defining AC. With this approach AC may be defined reliably to enhance efficiencies in radiotherapy and nuclear medicine processes, and to support clinicians in identifying and defining this rare disease. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12620000066987. Registered 28 January 2020–Retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620000066987.aspx

To assess visibility and artifact characteristics of polymer fiducials compared to standard gold fiducials for radiotherapy CT and MRI simulation. Three gold and three polymer fiducials were inserted into a CT and MRI tissue-equivalent phantom that approximated the prostate cancer radiotherapy configuration. The phantom and fiducials were imaged on CT and MRI. Images were assessed in terms of fiducial visibility and artifact. ImageJ was employed to quantify the pixel gray-scale of each fiducial and artifact. Fiducial gray-scale histograms and profiles were generated for analysis. Objective measurements of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and artifact index (AI) were calculated. The CT images showed that the gold fiducials are visually brighter, with greater contrast than the polymer. The higher peak values illustrate this in the line profiles. However, they produce bright radiating and dark shadowing artifacts. This is depicted by the greater width of line profiles and the disruption of phantom area profiles. Quantitatively this results in greater percentile ranges of the histograms. Furthermore, for CT, gold had a higher CNR than polymer, relative to the phantom. However, the gold CNR and SNR were degraded by the greater artifact and thus AI. Both fiducials were visible on MRI and had similar histograms and profiles that were also reflected in comparable CNR, SNR and AI. Polymer fiducials were well visualized in a phantom on CT and MR and produce less artifact than the gold fiducials. Polymer markers could enhance the quality and accuracy of radiotherapy co-registration and planning but require clinical confirmation.

No abstract

Introduction: Anal cancer (AC) is 18 F-FDG-PET avid and has been used to evaluate treatment response several months after chemoradiotherapy. This pilot study aimed to assess the utility of semi-automated contouring methods and quantitative measures of treatment response using 18 F-FDG-PET imaging at the early time point of 1-month post-chemoradiotherapy. Methods: Eleven patients with AC referred for chemoradiotherapy were prospectively enrolled into this study, with 10 meeting eligibility requirements. 18 F-FDG-PET imaging was obtained pre-chemoradiotherapy (TP1), and then 1-month (TP2), 3-6 months (TP3) and 9-12 months (TP4) post-chemoradiotherapy. Manual and semiautomated (Threshold) contouring methods were used to define the primary tumour on all 18 F-FDG-PET images. Resultant contours from each method were interrogated using quantitative measures, including volume, response index (RI), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), SUV max , SUV median and SUV mean . Response was assessed quantitatively as reductions in these measures and also qualitatively against established criteria. Results: Nine patients were qualitatively classified as complete metabolic responders at TP2 and all 10 at TP3. All quantitative measures demonstrated significant (P < 0.05) reductions at TP2 for both Manual and Threshold methods. All reduced further at TP3 and again at TP4 for Threshold methods. TLG showed the highest reduction at all post-chemoradiotherapy time points and classified the most responders for each method at each time point. All patients are recurrence-free at minimum 4-year follow-up. Conclusion: Based on our small sample size, semi-automated methods of disease definition using 18 F-FDG-PET imaging are feasible and appear to facilitate quantitative response classification of AC as early as 1month post-chemoradiotherapy. Early identification of treatment response may potentially improve disease management.