» Articles » PMID: 15062173

Interobserver Variation in Postimplant Computed Tomography Contouring Affects Quality Assessment of Prostate Brachytherapy

Overview
Journal Brachytherapy
Specialty Radiology
Date 2004 Apr 6
PMID 15062173
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Permanent seed implants are accepted treatment of early stage prostate cancer. Implant quality is assessed by post implant CT-based dosimetry but prostate contours on CT images are obscured by metallic seed artefact and edema. Outcome depends on implant quality, but perceived implant quality depends on accurate prostate contouring. This study documents inter observer variation in prostate contouring on post implant CT scans.

Methods And Materials: Ten patients had implant dosimetry calculated on 4 copies of the post implant CT scan. Prostate contours from MRI-CT fusion were the gold standard for prostate edge identification. CTs were contoured by an experienced prostate brachytherapist matching CT images to the pre implant TRUS, and by 2 GU radiation oncologists experienced in conformal radiotherapy planning. Dosimetry was compared to that obtained using MRI-CT fusion in terms of D90 and V100.

Results: Contours and dosimetry were not reproducible among the 3 observers. The V100's of the experienced brachytherapist differed from that of MRI-CT fusion by a mean of 2.4% compared to 9.1% and 4.4% for observers 1 and 2, and the D90 by a mean of 9.3 Gy compared to 30.3 and 14.4 Gy for observers 1 and 2.

Conclusions: Quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy based on 1 month post implant CT is difficult. This may obscure the dose-response relationship in brachytherapy as well as create problems for quality assurance in multicentre trials evaluating brachytherapy against standard modalities. Whenever possible, MRI-CT fusion should be employed to verify prostate contours post implant.

Citing Articles

Prospective Evaluation of Prostate and Organs at Risk Segmentation Software for MRI-based Prostate Radiation Therapy.

Sanders J, Kudchadker R, Tang C, Mok H, Venkatesan A, Thames H Radiol Artif Intell. 2022; 4(2):e210151.

PMID: 35391775 PMC: 8980936. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.210151.


Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy planning: The impact on patient-reported health-related quality of life.

Harris A, Wu M, Deirmenjian J, Shea S, Kang H, Patel R Brachytherapy. 2020; 20(1):66-74.

PMID: 33160849 PMC: 8691573. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2020.09.002.


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

Watanabe K, Katayama N, Katsui K, Matsushita T, Takamoto A, Ihara H J Radiat Res. 2019; 60(4):483-489.

PMID: 31083713 PMC: 6640899. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrz012.


Fusion of Intraoperative Transrectal Ultrasound Images with Post-implant Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Delouya G, Carrier J, Xavier-Larouche R, Hervieux Y, Beliveau-Nadeau D, Donath D Cureus. 2018; 10(3):e2394.

PMID: 29850389 PMC: 5973483. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2394.


Comparison of MRI visualization between linearly placed iron-containing and non-iron-containing fiducial markers for prostate radiotherapy.

Tanaka O, Komeda H, Tamaki M, Seike K, Fujimoto S, Yama E Br J Radiol. 2017; 91(1082):20170612.

PMID: 29120662 PMC: 5965782. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170612.