Interobserver Variability of 3.0-tesla and 1.5-tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging/computed Tomography Fusion Image-based Post-implant Dosimetry of Prostate Brachytherapy

Overview

Journal J Radiat Res

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialties Environmental Health
Oncology
Radiology

Date 2019 May 15

PMID 31083713

Citations 1

Authors

Kenta Watanabe

Norihisa Katayama

Kuniaki Katsui

Toshi Matsushita

Atsushi Takamoto

Hiroki Ihara

Yasutomo Nasu

Mitsuhiro Takemoto

Masahiro Kuroda

Susumu Kanazawa

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

CT-MR Image Fusion for Post-Implant Dosimetry Analysis in Brain Tumor Seed Implantation- a Preliminary Study.

Zhang M, Chu C, Huang L, Hu B Dis Markers. 2022; 2022:6310262.

PMID: 35620270 PMC: 9129983. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6310262.

References

Brachman D, Thomas T, Hilbe J, Beyer D . Failure-free survival following brachytherapy alone or external beam irradiation alone for T1-2 prostate tumors in 2222 patients: results from a single practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 48(1):111-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00598-8. View

Crook J, Milosevic M, Catton P, Yeung I, Haycocks T, Tran T . Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2004; 1(2):66-73. DOI: 10.1016/s1538-4721(02)00014-4. View

Polo A, Cattani F, Vavassori A, Origgi D, Villa G, Marsiglia H . MR and CT image fusion for postimplant analysis in permanent prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 60(5):1572-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.033. View

Crook J, Potters L, Stock R, Zelefsky M . Critical organ dosimetry in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy: defining the organs at risk. Brachytherapy. 2005; 4(3):186-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2005.01.002. View

Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T, Schnorr D, Felix R, Hamm B . MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185(5):1214-20. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.04.1584. View

Tanaka O, Hayashi S, Matsuo M, Sakurai K, Nakano M, Maeda S . Comparison of MRI-based and CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetric analysis of prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66(2):597-602. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.023. View

Heijmink S, Futterer J, Hambrock T, Takahashi S, Scheenen T, Huisman H . Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007; 244(1):184-95. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2441060425. View

Moerland M, van Deursen M, Elias S, van Vulpen M, Jurgenliemk-Schulz I, Battermann J . Decline of dose coverage between intraoperative planning and post implant dosimetry for I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy: comparison between loose and stranded seed implants. Radiother Oncol. 2008; 91(2):202-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.09.013. View

Anderson J, Swanson D, Levy L, Kuban D, Lee A, Kudchadker R . Urinary side effects and complications after permanent prostate brachytherapy: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Urology. 2009; 74(3):601-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.060. View

10.

Usmani N, Sloboda R, Kamal W, Ghosh S, Pervez N, Pedersen J . Can images obtained with high field strength magnetic resonance imaging reduce contouring variability of the prostate?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 80(3):728-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.03.019. View

11.

Frank S, Levy L, van Vulpen M, Crook J, Sylvester J, Grimm P . Outcomes after prostate brachytherapy are even better than predicted. Cancer. 2011; 118(3):839-47. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26307. View

12.

Grimm P, Billiet I, Bostwick D, Dicker A, Frank S, Immerzeel J . Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group. BJU Int. 2012; 109 Suppl 1:22-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x. View

13.

Davis B, Horwitz E, Lee W, Crook J, Stock R, Merrick G . American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2012; 11(1):6-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2011.07.005. View

14.

De Brabandere M, Hoskin P, Haustermans K, Van Den Heuvel F, Siebert F . Prostate post-implant dosimetry: interobserver variability in seed localisation, contouring and fusion. Radiother Oncol. 2012; 104(2):192-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2012.06.014. View

15.

Brown A, Pugh T, Swanson D, Kudchadker R, Bruno T, Christensen E . Improving prostate brachytherapy quality assurance with MRI-CT fusion-based sector analysis in a phase II prospective trial of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy. 2013; 12(5):401-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2012.10.001. View

16.

Viswanathan A, Erickson B, Ibbott G, Small Jr W, Eifel P . The American College of Radiology and the American Brachytherapy Society practice parameter for the performance of low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2017; 16(1):68-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2016.06.013. View

17.

Blanchard P, Menard C, Frank S . Clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging across the prostate brachytherapy workflow. Brachytherapy. 2017; 16(4):734-742. PMC: 6075683. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2016.11.012. View

18.

Frank S, Mourtada F, Crook J, Menard C . Use of magnetic resonance imaging in low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy from diagnosis to treatment assessment: Defining the knowledge gaps, technical challenges, and barriers to implementation. Brachytherapy. 2017; 16(4):672-678. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2017.01.014. View

19.

Martin G, Pugh T, Mahmood U, Kudchadker R, Wang J, Bruno T . Permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant magnetic resonance imaging dosimetry using positive contrast magnetic resonance imaging markers. Brachytherapy. 2017; 16(4):761-769. PMC: 6003422. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2017.04.004. View

20.

Prete J, Prestidge B, Bice W, DuBois D, Hotchkiss L . Comparison of MRI- and CT-based post-implant dosimetric analysis of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1998; 6(2):90-6. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1998)6:2<90::AID-ROI4>3.0.CO;2-C. View