BACKGROUND Concurrent treatment with temozolomide and radiotherapy followed by maintenance temozolomide is the standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor A, is currently approved for recurrent glioblastoma. Whether the addition of bevacizumab would improve survival among patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma is not known. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we treated adults who had centrally confirmed glioblastoma with radiotherapy (60 Gy) and daily temozolomide. Treatment with bevacizumab or placebo began during week 4 of radiotherapy and was continued for up to 12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. At disease progression, the assigned treatment was revealed, and bevacizumab therapy could be initiated or continued. The trial was designed to detect a 25% reduction in the risk of death and a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death, the two coprimary end points, with the addition of bevacizumab. RESULTS A total of 978 patients were registered, and 637 underwent randomization. There was no significant difference in the duration of overall survival between the bevacizumab group and the placebo group (median, 15.7 and 16.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio for death in the bevacizumab group, 1.13). Progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group (10.7 months vs. 7.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.79). There were modest increases in rates of hypertension, thromboembolic events, intestinal perforation, and neutropenia in the bevacizumab group. Over time, an increased symptom burden, a worse quality of life, and a decline in neurocognitive function were more frequent in the bevacizumab group. CONCLUSIONS First-line use of bevacizumab did not improve overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Progression-free survival was prolonged but did not reach the prespecified improvement target.

Background Characterization of textural features (spatial distributions of image intensity levels) has been considered as a tool for automatic tumor segmentation. The purpose of this work is to study the variability of the textural features in PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Material and methods Twenty patients with solid tumors underwent PET/CT scans on a GE Discovery VCT scanner, 45–60 minutes post-injection of 10 mCi of [18F]FDG. Scans were acquired in both 2D and 3D modes. For each acquisition the raw PET data was reconstructed using five different reconstruction parameters. Lesions were segmented on a default image using the threshold of 40% of maximum SUV. Fifty different texture features were calculated inside the tumors. The range of variations of the features were calculated with respect to the average value. Results Fifty textural features were classified based on the range of variation in three categories: small, intermediate and large variability. Features with small variability (range ≤ 5%) were entropy-first order, energy, maximal correlation coefficient (second order feature) and low-gray level run emphasis (high-order feature). The features with intermediate variability (10% ≤ range ≤ 25%) were entropy-GLCM, sum entropy, high gray level run emphsis, gray level non-uniformity, small number emphasis, and entropy-NGL. Forty remaining features presented large variations (range > 30%). Conclusion Textural features such as entropy-first order, energy, maximal correlation coefficient, and low-gray level run emphasis exhibited small variations due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Features with low level of variations are better candidates for reproducible tumor segmentation. Even though features such as contrast-NGTD, coarseness, homogeneity, and busyness have been previously used, our data indicated that these features presented large variations, therefore they could not be considered as a good candidates for tumor segmentation.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this educational report is to provide an overview of the present state-of-the-art PET auto-segmentation (PET-AS) algorithms and their respective validation, with an emphasis on providing the user with help in understanding the challenges and pitfalls associated with selecting and implementing a PET-AS algorithm for a particular application. Approach A brief description of the different types of PET-AS algorithms is provided using a classification based on method complexity and type. The advantages and the limitations of the current PET-AS algorithms are highlighted based on current publications and existing comparison studies. A review of the available image datasets and contour evaluation metrics in terms of their applicability for establishing a standardized evaluation of PET-AS algorithms is provided. The performance requirements for the algorithms and their dependence on the application, the radiotracer used and the evaluation criteria are described and discussed. Finally, a procedure for algorithm acceptance and implementation, as well as the complementary role of manual and auto-segmentation are addressed. Findings A large number of PET-AS algorithms have been developed within the last 20 years. Many of the proposed algorithms are based on either fixed or adaptively selected thresholds. More recently, numerous papers have proposed the use of more advanced image analysis paradigms to perform semi-automated delineation of the PET images. However, the level of algorithm validation is variable and for most published algorithms is either insufficient or inconsistent which prevents recommending a single algorithm. This is compounded by the fact that realistic image configurations with low signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and heterogeneous tracer distributions have rarely been used. Large variations in the evaluation methods used in the literature point to the need for a standardized evaluation protocol. Conclusions Available comparison studies suggest that PET-AS algorithms relying on advanced image analysis paradigms provide generally more accurate segmentation than approaches based on PET activity thresholds, particularly for realistic configurations. However, this may not be the case for simple shape lesions in situations with a narrower range of parameters, where simpler methods may also perform well. Recent algorithms which employ some type of consensus or automatic selection between several PET-AS methods have potential to overcome the limitations of the individual methods when appropriately trained. In either case, accuracy evaluation is required for each different PET scanner and scanning and image reconstruction protocol. For the simpler, less robust approaches, adaptation to scanning conditions, tumor type, and tumor location by optimization of parameters is necessary. The results from the method evaluation stage can be used to estimate the contouring uncertainty. All PET-AS contours should be critically verified by a physician. A standard test, i.e., a benchmark dedicated to ...

Helical tomotherapy is a dedicated intensity modulated radiation therapy ͑IMRT͒ system with on-board imaging capability ͑MVCT͒ and therefore differs from conventional treatment units. Different design goals resulted in some distinctive radiation field characteristics. The most significant differences in the design are the lack of flattening filter, increased shielding of the collimators, treatment and imaging operation modes and narrow fan beam delivery. Radiation characteristics of the helical tomotherapy system, sensitivity studies of various incident electron beam parameters and radiation safety analyses are presented here. It was determined that the photon beam energy spectrum of helical tomotherapy is similar to that of more conventional radiation treatment units. The two operational modes of the system result in different nominal energies of the incident electron beam with approximately 6 MeV and 3.5 MeV in the treatment and imaging modes, respectively. The off-axis mean energy dependence is much lower than in conventional radiotherapy units with less than 5% variation across the field, which is the consequence of the absent flattening filter. For the same reason the transverse profile exhibits the characteristic conical shape resulting in a 2-fold increase of the beam intensity in the center. The radiation leakage outside the field was found to be negligible at less than 0.05% because of the increased shielding of the collimators. At this level the in-field scattering is a dominant source of the radiation outside the field and thus a narrow field treatment does not result in the increased leakage. The sensitivity studies showed increased sensitivity on the incident electron position because of the narrow fan beam delivery and high sensitivity on the incident electron energy, as common to other treatment systems. All in all, it was determined that helical tomotherapy is a system with some unique radiation characteristics, which have been to a large extent optimized for intensity modulated delivery.