+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Prostate post-implant dosimetry: interobserver variability in seed localisation, contouring and fusion



Prostate post-implant dosimetry: interobserver variability in seed localisation, contouring and fusion



RadioTherapy and Oncology 104(2): 192-198



Reliable post-implant evaluation of prostate seed implants requires optimal seed identification and accurate delineation of anatomical structures. In this study the GEC-ESTRO groups BRAPHYQS and PROBATE investigated the interobserver variability in post-implant prostate contouring, seed reconstruction and image fusion and its impact on the dose-volume parameters. Post-implant T2-TSE, T1-GE and CT images were acquired for three patients, in order to evaluate four post-plan techniques: (a) CT, (b) T1+T2, (c) CT+T2, (d) CT+T1(int)+T2. Three interobserver studies were set up. (1) Contouring: the CTV-prostate was delineated on CT and T2 by eight physicians. Additionally one reference contour was defined on both image modalities for each patient. (2) Seed reconstruction: seven physicists localised the seeds on T1 and CT, manually and with CT seed finder tools. A reference seed geometry was defined on CT and T1. (3) Fusion: six physicists registered the image sets for technique (b)-(d), using seeds (if visible) and anatomical landmarks. A reference fusion was determined for each combined technique. (1) The SD(ref) for contouring (1 SD with respect to the reference volume) was largest for CT (23%), but also surprisingly large for MRI (17%). This resulted in large SD(ref) values for D90 for all techniques (17-23%). The surprisingly large SD(ref) for MRI was partly due to variations in interpretation of what to include in the prostate contour. (2) The SD(ref) in D90 for seed reconstruction was small (2%) for all techniques, except for T1+T2 (7%). (3) The SD(ref) in D90 due to image fusion was quite large, especially for direct fusion of CT+T2 (16%) where clearly corresponding landmarks were missing (seeds hardly visible on T2). In general, we observed large differences in D90 depending on the technique used. The dosimetric parameters for prostate post-implant evaluation showed large technique-dependent interobserver variabilities. Contouring and image fusion are the 'weak links' in the procedure. Guidelines and training in contouring together with incorporation of automated fusion software need to be implemented.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036512441

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22857857

DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2012.06.014


Related references

Interobserver variability of 3.0-tesla and 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy. Journal of Radiation Research 2019, 2019

Evaluation of the correlation between implant dosimetry and post implant dosimetry using CT and MRI in the treatment of early prostate cancer with I-125 permanent seed brachytherapy. 2007

Image fusion of prostate preplan transrectal ultrasound and post 125I-seed implant ct images to improve consistency and accuracy of post-seed implant quality statistics. BrachyTherapy 8(2): 116-0, 2009

A comparison of post-implant US/CT image fusion and MRI/CT image fusion for 125I prostate brachytherapy post implant dosimetry. BrachyTherapy 8(2): 124-0, 2009

Post-implant dosimetry using fusion of ultrasound images with 3D seed coordinates from fluoroscopic images in transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 48(3 Supplement): 360, 2000

Comparison of CT and MR-CT fusion for prostate post-implant dosimetry. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 82(5): 1912-1917, 2012

Are We Ready to Replace Post-Implant CT Dosimetry? Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy Post-Implant MRI Dosimetry Using Positive Contrast MRI Markers. BrachyTherapy 15: S189-S190, 2016

Case series analysis of post-brachytherapy prostate edema and its relevance to post-implant dosimetry. Post-implant prostate edema and dosimetry. Journal of Contemporary BrachyTherapy 4(2): 75-80, 2013

Dosimetry accuracy as a function of seed localization uncertainty in permanent prostate brachytherapy: increased seed number correlates with less variability in prostate dosimetry. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52(11): 3105-3119, 2007

Effects of seed migration on post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy. Medical Physics 34(2): 471-480, 2007

Evaluation of post-plan dosimetry using TRUS and CT after transperineal prostate seed implant. Medical Dosimetry 27(4): 289-293, 2003

Measurement uncertainty analysis of low-dose-rate prostate seed brachytherapy: post-implant dosimetry. Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine 38(1): 71-81, 2015

A comparison of day 0 and day 14 post implant dosimetry; differences in degree of prostate vs. seed shift between day 0 and day 14 correlate with the change in D90 and V100. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*biology*physics 60: S595-S596, 2004

Effect of a urinary catheter on seed position and rectal and bladder doses in CT-based post-implant dosimetry for prostate cancer brachytherapy. Journal of Contemporary BrachyTherapy 7(3): 211-217, 2015

Interobserver variability in rectum contouring in high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional prospective analysis. BrachyTherapy 17(1): 208-213, 2017