» Articles » PMID: 9609905

Intraobserver and Interobserver Variability of MR Imaging- and CT-derived Prostate Volumes After Transperineal Interstitial Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy

Overview
Journal Radiology
Specialty Radiology
Date 1998 Jun 4
PMID 9609905
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the relative accuracy and precision of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in the assessment of postimplantation prostate volume by determining intraobserver, interobserver, and intermodality variations.

Materials And Methods: CT and MR images of 41 consecutive patients, after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy, were evaluated by two physicians to determine interobserver and intermodality variability in prostate volume measurements. Repeat evaluation in five randomly selected patients was used to determine intraobserver variability.

Results: Observer 1 versus 2 CT-determined mean prostate volume difference was statistically significant (-8.5 cm3 +/- 9.74 [standard deviation], P < .001); observer 1 versus 2 MR-determined mean prostate volume difference was not significant (1.9 cm3 +/- 11.7, P = .492). CT intraobserver range of dimensional errors was 3.5 and 11.4 times that of MR imaging. Observer 1 CT and MR volumes were significantly different (P = .001); observer 2 CT and MR volumes were not significantly different (P = .079).

Conclusion: With both CT and MR imaging, variation is less when evaluations are conducted by one observer. Variation in one observer may be further reduced by using MR imaging in place of CT.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of therapeutic radiographer contouring for magnetic resonance image guided online adaptive prostate radiotherapy.

Adair Smith G, Dunlop A, Alexander S, Barnes H, Casey F, Chick J Radiother Oncol. 2023; 180:109457.

PMID: 36608770 PMC: 10074473. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.109457.


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.


Evaluation of Deep Learning to Augment Image-Guided Radiotherapy for Head and Neck and Prostate Cancers.

Oktay O, Nanavati J, Schwaighofer A, Carter D, Bristow M, Tanno R JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(11):e2027426.

PMID: 33252691 PMC: 7705593. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27426.


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.


Evaluation of a mobile C-arm cone-beam CT in interstitial high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment planning.

Djukelic M, Waterhouse D, Toh R, Tan H, Rowshanfarzad P, Joseph D J Med Radiat Sci. 2019; 66(2):112-121.

PMID: 30945476 PMC: 6545480. DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.331.