Search

Rationale and Objectives: The new version of the Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Breast imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADs) encourages investigations of a new enhancement descriptor: “Lesion Conspicuity” (LC). The study aims to assess the diagnostic performance and the relationship with the receptor profile of this new enhancement descriptor. Materials and Methods: Three hundred twenty-five patients with 381 breast lesions who underwent CEM before histological assessmentwere selected. Four radiologists, blinded to each other, categorized LC into the following levels: absent, low, moderate, and high. Considering moderate and high evaluations as predictive of malignancy, the diagnostic performance of CEM was calculated using histological results of the biopsy as the gold standard. The association between LC values and the receptor profile of the neoplasms was also evaluated. Results: The median age at the CEM examination was 50 years (IQR: 45-59). Considering the value of LC of the most experienced radiologist with the interpretation of Low Energy images (LE), we obtained a sensitivity (SE) of 91.9% (95% CI: 88.6%-95.2%) and a specificity (SP) of 67.2% (95% CI: 58.9%-75.5%). An association between “high” lesion conspicuity with ER/PgR not expressed (p = 0.025), with Ki-67>20% (p = 0.033), and with Grading G3 (p = 0.020) was observed. Conclusion: The new feature of enhancement, “Lesion Conspicuity”, demonstrated satisfactory performance in predicting the malignancy of lesions and significant correlation with the receptor profile of malignant breast neoplasms.

Aim: The primary aim of this study is to provide preliminary indications for safe constraints of rectum and bladder in patients re-irradiated with stereotactic body RT (SBRT). Methods: Data from patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa) and intraprostatic relapse, from 1998 to 2016, were retrospectively collected. First RT course was delivered with 3D conformal RT techniques, SBRT or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). All patients underwent re-irradiation with SBRT with heavy hypofractionated schedules. Cumulative dose-volume values to organs at risk (OARs) were computed and possible correlation with developed toxicities was investigated. Results: Twenty-six patients were included. Median age at re-irradiation was 75 years, mean interval between the two RT courses was 5.6 years and the median follow-up was 47.7 months (13.4–114.3 months). After re-irradiation, acute and late G ≥ 2 GU toxicity events were reported in 3 (12%) and 10 (38%) patients, respectively, while late G ≥ 2 GI events were reported in 4 (15%) patients. No acute G ≥ 2 GI side effects were registered. Patients receiving an equivalent uniform dose of the two RT treatments < 131 Gy appeared to be at higher risk of progression (4-yr b-PFS: 19% vs 33%, p = 0.145). Cumulative re-irradiation constraints that appear to be safe are D30% < 57.9 Gy for bladder and D30% < 66.0 Gy, D60% < 38.0 Gy and V122.1 Gy < 5% for rectum. Conclusion: Preliminary re-irradiation constraints for bladder and rectum have been reported. Our preliminary investigation may serve to clear some grey areas of PCa re-irradiation.

Background Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) with TomoHelical™ (TH) or TomoDirect™ (TD) allows a uniform target coverage. In this study, we compare treatment plans using TD and TH in the setting of hypofractionated PMRT and immediate breast reconstruction. Material and methods The TD-treatment plans of breast cancer patients treated between May 2016 and August 2019 were retrospectively selected. All the TD plans were re-planned on TH with the same prescription dose (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) and according to our dose/volume constraints. Data about the 2 treatment plans were compared with a focus on PTV coverage and all the organs at risk (OARs) constraints. Results Fifty patients for a total number of 100 treatment plans (50 with TD and 50 re-planned with TH) were analyzed. All the median value in the TD PTV CHEST WALL plans fulfilled the predefined planning objectives, even though TH emerged as best for target coverage with statistically significant difference for V90%. TD provided the lowest V95% for the PTV SVC, but the median value was near to the recommended value of 90% (89.8 % vs 98.6% for TD and TH, respectively). Overall, TD reached the best OARs sparing. The main statistically significant differences with TH were for contralateral breast, ipsilateral and contralateral lung. All the other dose values for TH were higher than TD, but they fulfilled the recommended/acceptable predefined planning objectives. Conclusions In the setting of PMRT, TD compared to TH reached an acceptable target volume coverage, with an optimal sparing of OARs.