» Articles » PMID: 16966002

Comparison of MRI-based and CT/MRI Fusion-based Postimplant Dosimetric Analysis of Prostate Brachytherapy

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2006 Sep 13
PMID 16966002
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based and computed tomography (CT)/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry methods in permanent prostate brachytherapy.

Methods And Materials: Between October 2004 and March 2006, a total of 52 consecutive patients with prostate cancer were treated by brachytherapy, and postimplant dosimetry was performed using CT/MRI fusion. The accuracy and reproducibility were prospectively compared between MRI-based dosimetry and CT/MRI fusion-based dosimetry based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) related parameters as recommended by the American Brachytherapy Society.

Results: The prostate volume was 15.97+/-6.17 cc (mean+/-SD) in MRI-based dosimetry, and 15.97+/-6.02 cc in CT/MRI fusion-based dosimetry without statistical difference. The prostate V100 was 94.5% and 93.0% in MRI-based and CT/MRI fusion-based dosimetry, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.002). The prostate D90 was 119.4% and 114.4% in MRI-based and CT/MRI fusion-based dosimetry, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.004).

Conclusion: Our current results suggested that, as with fusion images, MR images allowed accurate contouring of the organs, but they tended to overestimate the analysis of postimplant dosimetry in comparison to CT/MRI fusion images. Although this MRI-based dosimetric discrepancy was negligible, MRI-based dosimetry was acceptable and reproducible in comparison to CT-based dosimetry, because the difference between MRI-based and CT/MRI fusion-based results was smaller than that between CT-based and CT/MRI fusion-based results as previously reported.

Citing Articles

Achieving accurate prostate auto-segmentation on CT in the absence of MR imaging.

Duan J, Tegtmeier R, Vargas C, Yu N, Laughlin B, Rwigema J Radiother Oncol. 2024; 202:110588.

PMID: 39419353 PMC: 11663129. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110588.


Urethral identification using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging and interfraction urethral motion evaluation for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Kato Y, Okumiya S, Okudaira K, Ito J, Kumagai M, Kamomae T Nagoya J Med Sci. 2023; 85(3):504-517.

PMID: 37829483 PMC: 10565580. DOI: 10.18999/nagjms.85.3.504.


Comparison of post-implant dosimetrics between intraoperatively built custom-linked seeds and loose seeds by sector analysis at 24 hours and 1 month for localized prostate cancer.

Okazaki E, Kuratsukuri K, Nishikawa T, Tanaka T, Sakagami M, Shibuya K J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2020; 12(4):317-326.

PMID: 33293970 PMC: 7690227. DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2020.98110.


Efficacy of butylscopolamine in obtaining clear MR image for intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Tanaka O, Komeda H, Tamaki M, Seike K, Fujimoto S, Yama E Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2020; 3-4:19-22.

PMID: 32095562 PMC: 7033771. DOI: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2017.08.001.


Deformable registration of x ray and MRI for postimplant dosimetry in low dose rate prostate brachytherapy.

Hrinivich W, Park S, Le Y, Song D, Lee J Med Phys. 2019; 46(9):3961-3973.

PMID: 31215042 PMC: 6739133. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13667.