+ 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

Interobserver variability of 3.0-tesla and 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy



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



This study aimed to compare the interobserver variabilities in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/computed tomography (CT) fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry of permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) between 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI. The study included 60 patients. Of these patients, 30 underwent 1.5-T MRI and CT 30 days after seed implantation (1.5-T group), and 30 underwent 3.0-T MRI and CT 30 days after seed implantation (3.0-T group). All patients received PPB alone. Two radiation oncologists performed MRI/CT fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry, and the interobserver variabilities of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters [dose (Gy) received by 90% of the prostate volume (prostate D90)], percentage of the prostate volume receiving at least the full prescribed dose (prostate V100), percentage of the prostate volume receiving at least 150% of the prescribed dose (prostate V150), dose (Gy) received by 5% of the urethral volume (urethral D5) and the urethral volume receiving at least 150% of the prescribed dose (urethral V150)] were retrospectively estimated using the paired Student's t test and Pearson's correlation coefficient. The Pearson's correlation coefficients of all DVH parameters were higher in the 3.0-T group than in the 1.5-T group (1.5-T vs 3.0-T: prostate D90, 0.65 vs 0.93; prostate V100, 0.62 vs 0.82; prostate V150, 0.97 vs 0.98; urethral D5, 0.92 vs 0.93; and urethral V150, 0.88 vs 0.93). In the paired Student's t test, no significant differences were observed in any of the DVH parameters between the two radiation oncologists in the 3.0-T group (0.068 ≤ P ≤ 0.842); however, significant differences were observed in prostate D90 (P = 0.004), prostate V100 (P = 0.011) and prostate V150 (P = 0.002) between the oncologists in the 1.5-T group. The interobserver variability of DVH parameters in the MRI/CT fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry analysis of brachytherapy was lower with 3.0-T MRI than with 1.5-T MRI.

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

Accession: 066779432

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 31083713

DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrz012


Related references

Image Distortions on a Plastic Interstitial Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Brachytherapy Applicator at 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Their Dosimetric Impact. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 99(3): 710-718, 2018

Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Academic Radiology 20(8): 1041-1047, 2013

Optimal imaging parameters and the advantage of cerebrospinal fluid flow image using time-spatial labeling inversion pulse at 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of image quality for 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 70(12): 1439-1444, 2015

Optimal Imaging Parameters and the Advantage of Renal Artery Image Using Time-spatial Labeling Inversion Pulse at 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison of Image Quality for 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 72(11): 1113-1121, 2017

Comparison of combined x-ray radiography and magnetic resonance (XMR) imaging-versus computed tomography-based dosimetry for the evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy implants. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 71(5): 1518-1525, 2008

7.0-Tesla Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of granulomatous meningoencephalitis in a Maltese dog: a comparison with 0.2 and 1.5-Tesla. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 71(11): 1545-1548, 2010

Rapid parametric mapping of the longitudinal relaxation time T1 using two-dimensional variable flip angle magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla, 3 Tesla, and 7 Tesla. Plos One 9(3): E91318, 2015

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

Image distortion and artifacts caused by the use of a titanium aneurism clip in 1.5 tesla- and 3 tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: effect on 60cobalt stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 70(6): 534-541, 2014

Prostate post-implant dosimetry: interobserver variability in seed localisation, contouring and fusion. RadioTherapy and Oncology 104(2): 192-198, 2013

Simultaneous 68 Ga DOTATATE Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Meningioma Target Contouring: Feasibility and Impact Upon Interobserver Variability Versus Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Clinical Oncology ) 29(7): 448-458, 2017

11C-acetate positron emission tomography imaging and image fusion with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24(16): 2513-2519, 2006

Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 Tesla With a Cochlear Implant Magnet in Place: Image Quality and Usability. Otology and Neurotology 37(9): 1284-1290, 2017

Evaluation of intraorbital prosthetic pigmentation using 0.3 and 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Veterinary Ophthalmology 17(3): 184-189, 2014

Image quality and cancer visibility of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 7 Tesla. European Radiology 24(8): 1950-1958, 2015