Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based and Conventional Measurements for Proton Beam Therapy of Uveal Melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

Conventionally, ocular proton therapy (PT) is planned using measurements obtained by an ophthalmologist using ultrasound, fundoscopy, biometry, and intraoperative assessments. Owing to the recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of uveal melanoma (UM), it is possible to acquire high-resolution 3-dimensional images of the eye, providing the opportunity to incorporate MRI in ocular PT planning. In this study, we described how these measurements can be obtained using MRI, compared the MRI-based measurements with conventional ophthalmic measurements, and identified potential pitfalls for both modalities.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SUBJECTS

Data from 23 consecutive patients with UM treated with PT were retrospectively evaluated.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of axial length, tumor height and basal diameter, and marker-tumor distances were compared with the conventional ophthalmic measurements, and discrepancies were evaluated in a multidisciplinary setting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tumor prominence and basal diameters on MRI and ultrasound, axial length on MRI and biometry, tumor-marker distances on MRI and measured intraoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean absolute differences of the tumor height and basal diameter measurements between ultrasound and MRI were 0.57 mm and 1.44 mm, respectively. Larger absolute differences in height and basal diameter were observed when the full tumor extent was not visible on ultrasound (0.92 mm and 1.67 mm, respectively) compared with when the full tumor extent was visible (0.44 mm and 1.15 mm, respectively). When the full tumor was not visible on ultrasound, MRI was considered more reliable. Tumor-marker distances measured using MRI and intraoperative techniques differed < 1 mm in 55% of the markers. For anteriorly located and mushroom-shaped tumors (25% of the markers), MRI provided more accurate measurements. In flat UM (15% of the markers), however, it was difficult to delineate the tumor on MRI. The mean absolute difference in axial length between optical biometry and MRI was 0.50 mm. The presence of the tumor was found to influence optical biometry in 15 of 22 patients; the remaining patients showed a better agreement (0.30 mm). Magnetic resonance imaging-based biometry was considered more reliable in patients with UM.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging allowed for the 3-dimensional assessment of the tumor and surrounding tissue. In specific patients, it provided a more reliable measurement of axial length, tumor dimensions, and marker-tumor distances and could contribute to a more accurate treatment planning. Nevertheless, a combined evaluation remains advised, especially for flat UM.