Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology最新文献

{"title":"Navigating New Frontiers: Initial Auckland Experience of Seed Localisation Techniques for Breast Conserving Surgery.","authors":"Yousr Al-Sheibani, Andrew MacDonald, Kaye Wang","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.70024","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Breast conserving surgery for non-palpable tumours requires imaging-guided localisation, historically achieved with hookwire localisation (HWL). HWL, however, has recognised shortcomings including the need for same-day surgery with associated radiology resource/logistical constraints, psychological impact of wire protrusion, and complications such as wire displacement or fracture. The introduction of novel non-wire surgical marker navigation (SMN) techniques offers promising benefits. This study evaluates the early implementation of SMN (Sirius Pintuition and Merit SAVISCOUT systems) in one radiology department in Auckland, New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating surgical outcomes in patients with non-palpable tumours who underwent preoperative localisation between May 2023 and June 2024. Three groups were compared: two cohorts who underwent SMN in the form of Pintution (n = 36) and SAVISCOUT (n = 42) and one who underwent HWL (n = 35). Surgical outcomes assessed included histological margin status and rates of re-excision. Technical challenges and complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in surgical outcomes between HWL and SMN groups. The 'surgery complete' rate was 89% in the HWL group, 82% in the Pintuition group, and 97% in the SAVISCOUT group (p = 0.10). Technique failure occurred in five cases of SMN (6%) due to inadequate seed position and one case of HWL (3%) due to wire displacement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SMN in the form of Pintuition and SAVISCOUT demonstrate comparable surgical outcomes to HWL, whilst also offering advantages in scheduling flexibility and resource utilisation. A small rate of technical failure highlights the operator learning curve and need for appropriate training.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145081000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quantifying Interfractional Motion in Patients With Anorectal Cancer During Radiotherapy and Recommendations of Optimal Planning Target Volume Margins","authors":"Ye Jin Yoo,&nbsp;Youngmoon Goh,&nbsp;Hanyong Kim,&nbsp;Jin-hong Park","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70022","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70022","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aimed to assess pelvic organ motion and volume changes during long-course radiation therapy (LCRT) for anorectal cancer and propose an optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This retrospective study analysed 526 daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) from 22 patients with anorectal cancer undergoing LCRT. Patients followed a bladder-filling protocol by drinking water before treatment. The bladder, rectum and mesorectum were delineated on planning CT and CBCTs. PTV margins were calculated using the van Herk formula, and margins to cover 95% interfractional motion were also evaluated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Bladder volume exhibited the higher variability (mean ± standard deviations, 271.3 ± 130.5 mL), compared to the mesorectum (111.3 ± 26.2 mL) and rectum (50.6 ± 15.6 mL). Mesorectum motion showed no significant correlation with bladder volume changes but was significantly associated with rectal volume (<i>r</i> = 0.566; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 in the superior mesorectum). Anterior mesorectum motion was larger compared to other directions, particularly in the superior region, with systematic and random variations of 4.4 and 3.5 mm. Using the van Herk formula, PTV margins for the anterior mesorectum were 5.8, 4.9, and 3.3 mm for the superior, middle and inferior regions, respectively. Similarly, margins to cover 95% interfractional movement extended up to 6.7 mm in the superior–anterior region.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Bladder volume varied significantly during LCRT, while mesorectum motion was influenced by rectal volume changes. A 5-mm PTV margin was sufficient for the mid to lower mesorectum, with a larger 7-mm margin needed for the superior–anterior mesorectum. Incorporating 95% interfractional motion coverage further refined these margin recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":"707-714"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145075420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Adapting to the Future: Introducing the Radiation Oncology Alliance Adaptive Radiotherapy Working Group","authors":"Meegan Shepherd,&nbsp;Kenton Thompson,&nbsp;Trent Aland,&nbsp;Jeremy Booth,&nbsp;Jeremiah de Leon,&nbsp;Cathy Hargrave,&nbsp;Michael G. Jameson,&nbsp;Sweet Ping Ng,&nbsp;Amy Yuen Meei Teh,&nbsp;Nigel Anderson","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70023","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70023","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper details the current state of Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (oART) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) and identifies the need for best practice guidelines for ANZ. This paper has been formulated by a working party formed as a branch of the Radiation Oncology Alliance (ROA), which is the peak group comprising the organisations that represent the four key professions in radiation oncology—the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR), the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM), the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) and the Cancer Nurses Society of Australia (CNSA). The ROA Adaptive Radiation Therapy working party consists of membership from RANZCR, ACPSEM and ASMIRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":"763-767"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1754-9485.70023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145069788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial—A Response to Chronic External Research Underfunding: The Radiation Oncology Large Research Grant(s)","authors":"Daniel E. Roos","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70021","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":"747-748"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145064778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Mepitel Film Versus StrataXRT in Managing Radiation Dermatitis in an Intra-Patient Controlled Clinical Trial of 80 Postmastectomy Patients”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70017","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<p>P. Herst, M. van Schalkwyk, N. Baker, et al. “Mepitel Film Versus StrataXRT in Managing Radiation Dermatitis in an Intra-Patient Controlled Clinical Trial of 80 Postmastectomy Patients,” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 69, no. 4 (2025): 440–446, https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13850.</p><p>Details of the Correction:</p><p>In the originally published version of this article, the article was incorrectly categorised as “Medical Imaging”. However, upon a recent review and reclassification of its primary content, the article type has been determined to align more accurately with “Radiation Oncology”.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1754-9485.70017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145015533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ChatGPT's Methodological Perspectives on Information Quality in Interventional Radiology","authors":"Deniz Esin Tekcan Sanli,&nbsp;Ahmet Necati Sanli","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70018","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":"745-746"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144957294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Management of Glioblastoma in Elderly Patients in a Single Australian Centre","authors":"Kimberley Budgen,&nbsp;Danica Cossio,&nbsp;Danny R. Youlden,&nbsp;Nathan Dunn,&nbsp;Suzanne Poulgrain,&nbsp;Katharine Cuff,&nbsp;Margaret McGrath,&nbsp;Andrew Pullar,&nbsp;Matthew C. Foote,&nbsp;Rumal Jayalath,&nbsp;Julie Moore,&nbsp;Mark B. Pinkham","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70010","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Glioblastoma management in elderly patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to review oncological treatment strategies at a single institution from 2011 to 2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patients aged ≥ 70 years who received radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy for radiological or histological glioblastoma were identified from a centralised database. Patients receiving supportive care only were excluded, whether or not they had surgery at diagnosis. Clinicopathologic data and treatment modalities were collected. Median survival from diagnosis was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Seventy-eight people were identified during the study period, median age 74.5 years (range 70–88). Seventy-five people had surgery (24 biopsy only, and 51 resection) and three people had radiological diagnosis only. The most common first-line treatment was concurrent chemoradiation (33/78, 42%). Only 18/33 (55%) went on to receive adjuvant temozolomide, median of five cycles (interquartile range [IQR] 2–6). The most common radiotherapy dose was 40 Gy in 15 fractions (52/73, 71%) and 60 Gy in 30 fractions was less frequently prescribed over time. Second-line therapy for recurrent or progressive disease was received in 23% overall, and varied in modality. Median survival was 7.0 months (IQR 4.4–12.5), and 6.4% (CI 4.3%–9.1%) at 2 years.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Survival is poor for elderly patients with glioblastoma despite treatment. Concurrent chemoradiation was the most common treatment strategy, and 40 Gy in 15 fractions was the most common radiotherapy schedule. A small proportion of people received treatment for recurrent disease, and modality varied greatly.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":"757-762"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144957329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Feasibility of Therapist-Driven MR-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Disease: Geometric Accuracy and Dosimetric Impact.","authors":"Amanda Moreira, Winnie Li, Iymad R Mansour, Mame Faye, Ali Hosni, Aruz Mesci, Enrique Gutierrez-Valencia, Patricia Lindsay, Peter Chung, Jeff Winter","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is the resource-intensive process of daily treatment plan modification. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of radiation therapist (RT)-led MRI-guided ART for oligometastatic disease (OMD) by comparing geometric accuracy and dosimetric differences between RT and radiation oncologist (RO) re-contouring.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five RTs and five ROs retrospectively re-contoured gross target volumes (GTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) for eight OMD cases. RT and RO contours were compared against consensus RO Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (RO-STAPLE) contours using the Dice similarity coefficient (DICE), mean distance to agreement (MDA), planning target volume (PTV) D95 and OAR D0.5cc using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Moreover, an RO qualitatively scored all contours using a 5-point Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found very good geometric accuracy with average (±standard deviation) GTV DICE of 0.82 ± 0.06 for RTs and 0.85 ± 0.09 for ROs and MDA of 0.88 ± 0.03 mm for RT and 0.75 ± 0.05 mm for ROs relative to the RO-STAPLE. Qualitative GTV Likert scores were excellent, 4.8/5 for RTs and 4.7/5 for ROs. Mean percent difference in PTV D95 compared to RO-STAPLE was small but significantly higher for RTs (0.5% ± 1.5%) compared with ROs (-0.7% ± 1.9%, p < 0.05). Mean relative change in OAR D0.5cc results was small with -1% ± 6% for RTs and -1% ± 12% for ROs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Here we provide the first report of geometric and dosimetric contouring uncertainty for MR-guided online ART for OMD. Our results show that RT re-contouring maintains similar performance for eligible targets and OARs compared with RO contours, establishing the initial feasibility of an RT-led workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144957324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comment on ‘The Quality of Information Produced by ChatGPT About Conditions Managed by Interventional Radiologists’","authors":"Hinpetch Daungsupawong,&nbsp;Viroj Wiwanitkit","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70015","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 6","pages":"668-669"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144957310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Surveillance After Treatment of Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Review of Institutional Outcomes and Proposed Surveillance Imaging Protocol","authors":"Esther Duruchukwu,&nbsp;Anna Lawless,&nbsp;Dasantha Jayamanne,&nbsp;David Veivers,&nbsp;Andrew Wignall,&nbsp;Leo Pang,&nbsp;Joseph Chan,&nbsp;Mark Stevens,&nbsp;Thomas Eade,&nbsp;Adrian Lee,&nbsp;Alexander Guminski,&nbsp;Sarah Bergamin","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70013","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1754-9485.70013","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Long term survival for adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) arising from the head and neck declines for many decades after initial treatment due to late disease relapse. Follow up and surveillance imaging practices vary due to limited evidence as well as a lack of international guidelines (until 2021).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted for patients treated curatively for ACC between 2007 and 2024 at a single institution. Clinicopathologic information, treatment details, patterns of follow-up (including radiologic investigations) and oncological outcomes are reported.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>51 patients comprised the study cohort. Median age was 50 years; 96% of patients underwent surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy. Median follow-up was 7.65 years. 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 88% and 73% respectively. 18% and 61% of patients underwent surveillance imaging within 3- and 12-months of treatment completion respectively. 80% of first recurrences were detected on surveillance imaging. Half the episodes of first disease recurrence occurred within 5 years of initial treatment, a further 25% within 10 years and the remaining 25% occurred &gt; 10 years post treatment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This cohort of patients curatively treated for ACC at a single institution highlights the propensity for late distant relapse as well as heterogeneity of surveillance imaging. A local institutional protocol is proposed based upon the 2021 ASCO guidelines to standardise clinical and radiologic follow-up for this group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"69 7","pages":"749-756"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1754-9485.70013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144873578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}