Tractostorm: The what,why, and how of tractography dissection reproducibility

Investigative studies of white matter (WM) brain structures using diffusion MRI (dMRI) tractography frequently require manual WM bundle segmentation, often called “virtual dissection.” Human errors and personal decisions make these manual segmentations hard to reproduce, which have not yet been quantified by the dMRI community. It is our opinion that if the field of dMRI tractography wants to be taken seriously as a widespread clinical tool, it is imperative to harmonize WM bundle segmentations and develop protocols aimed to be used in clinical settings. The EADC‐ADNI Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol achieved such standardization through a series of steps that must be reproduced for every WM bundle. This article is an observation of the problematic. A specific bundle segmentation protocol was used in order to provide a real‐life example, but the contribution of this article is to discuss the need for reproducibility and standardized protocol, as for any measurement tool. This study required the participation of 11 experts and 13 nonexperts in neuroanatomy and “virtual dissection” across various laboratories and hospitals. Intra‐rater agreement (Dice score) was approximately 0.77, while inter‐rater was approximately 0.65. The protocol provided to participants was not necessarily optimal, but its design mimics, in essence, what will be required in future protocols. Reporting tractometry results such as average fractional anisotropy, volume or streamline count of a particular bundle without a sufficient reproducibility score could make the analysis and interpretations more difficult. Coordinated efforts by the diffusion MRI tractography community are needed to quantify and account for reproducibility of WM bundle extraction protocols in this era of open and collaborative science.     

Retrospective review of pemetrexed with or without platinum in malignant mesothelioma: The Australian 'Special Access Scheme' experience

Background: Pemetrexed and cisplatin have recently been shown to significantly improve survival compared with cisplatin alone. However, there are only limited data reflecting teaching hospital experience outside a clinical trial. Pemetrexed has only been available in Australia on a restricted basis since 2002. We reviewed our experience of patients treated on the Australian ‘Special Access Scheme’ at three major thoracic oncology units. Methods: Charts were reviewed for all patients enrolled on the scheme. Data was extracted on age, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, histology, prior therapy, time from diagnosis to starting pemetrexed, chemotherapy (pemetrexed alone or with a platinum), cycle number, response rate, actuarial progression‐free and overall survival. Doses were cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC = 5 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m² every 21 days. Results: 52 patients (32 male and 20 female) were reviewed. Median age was 58 years and 88% were WHO 0–1. Histology included 54% epithelial, 17% biphasic (epithelial and sarcomatoid) and 21% undefined. The median time from diagnosis to administration of pemetrexed was 145 days. Sixty‐five percent had minimal surgical intervention with video assisted thoracoscopy, pleurodesis and biopsy, while 19% had received prior palliative radiation. Seventy‐one percent were chemotherapy naïve, the remaining 29% having received previous platinum and/or gemcitabine regimens. Twenty‐three percent had pemetrexed alone, 35% in combination with carboplatin and 42% with cisplatin. The median number of cycles was 4 (range 1–13). The response rate was 33%. No toxicity was observed in 20% grade 3–4 toxicity in 10% (majority nausea/vomiting). The median progression‐free and overall survival times from starting pemetrexed were 184 days and 298 days, respectively. Conclusions: Pemetrexed‐based regimens are safe and effective in a community setting in malignant mesothelioma.