PURPOSE: The prostate volume delineated on MRI is smaller than on CT. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of MRI- vs. CT-based prostate delineation using multiple observers on the dose to the target and organs at risk during external beam radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MRI scans of the pelvic region were made of 18 patients and matched three-dimensionally on the bony anatomy. Three observers delineated the prostate using both modalities. A fourth observer delineated the rectal wall and the bulb of the penis. The planning treatment volume (PTV) was generated from the delineated prostates with a margin of 10 mm in three-dimensions. A three-field treatment plan with a prescribed dose of 78 Gy to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements point was automatically generated from each PTV. Dose-volume histograms were calculated of all PTVs, rectal walls, and penile bulbs. The equivalent uniform dose was calculated for the rectal wall using a volume exponent (n = 0.12). RESULTS: The equivalent uniform dose of the CT rectal wall in plans based on the CT-delineated prostate was, on average, 5.1 Gy (SEM 0.5) greater than in the plans based on the MRI-delineated prostate. For the MRI rectal wall, this difference was 3.6 Gy (SEM 0.4). Allowing for the same equivalent uniform dose to the CT rectal wall, the prescribed dose to the PTV could be raised from 78 to 85 Gy when using the MRI-delineated prostate for treatment planning. The mean dose to the bulb of the penis was 11.6 Gy (SEM 1.8) lower for plans based on the MRI-delineated prostate. The mean coverage (volume of the PTV receiving > or =95% of the prescribed dose) was 99.9% for both modalities. The interobserver coverage (coverage of the PTV by a treatment plan designed for the PTV delineated by another observer in the same modality) was 97% for both modalities. The MRI rectum was significantly more ventrally localized than the CT rectum, probably because of the rounded tabletop and no knee support on the MRI scanner. CONCLUSIONS: The dose delivered to the rectal wall and bulb of the penis is significantly reduced with treatment plans based on the MRI-delineated prostate compared with the CT-delineated prostate, allowing a dose escalation of 2.0-7.0 Gy for the same rectal wall dose. The interobserver coverage was the same for CT and MRI delineation of the prostate. A statistically significant difference in position between the CT- and MRI-delineated rectum was observed, probably owing to a different tabletop and use of knee support.
PURPOSE: The prostate volume delineated on MRI is smaller than on CT. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of MRI- vs. CT-based prostate delineation using multiple observers on the dose to the target and organs at risk during external beam radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MRI scans of the pelvic region were made of 18 patients and matched three-dimensionally on the bony anatomy. Three observers delineated the prostate using both modalities. A fourth observer delineated the rectal wall and the bulb of the penis. The planning treatment volume (PTV) was generated from the delineated prostates with a margin of 10 mm in three-dimensions. A three-field treatment plan with a prescribed dose of 78 Gy to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements point was automatically generated from each PTV. Dose-volume histograms were calculated of all PTVs, rectal walls, and penile bulbs. The equivalent uniform dose was calculated for the rectal wall using a volume exponent (n = 0.12). RESULTS: The equivalent uniform dose of the CT rectal wall in plans based on the CT-delineated prostate was, on average, 5.1 Gy (SEM 0.5) greater than in the plans based on the MRI-delineated prostate. For the MRI rectal wall, this difference was 3.6 Gy (SEM 0.4). Allowing for the same equivalent uniform dose to the CT rectal wall, the prescribed dose to the PTV could be raised from 78 to 85 Gy when using the MRI-delineated prostate for treatment planning. The mean dose to the bulb of the penis was 11.6 Gy (SEM 1.8) lower for plans based on the MRI-delineated prostate. The mean coverage (volume of the PTV receiving > or =95% of the prescribed dose) was 99.9% for both modalities. The interobserver coverage (coverage of the PTV by a treatment plan designed for the PTV delineated by another observer in the same modality) was 97% for both modalities. The MRI rectum was significantly more ventrally localized than the CT rectum, probably because of the rounded tabletop and no knee support on the MRI scanner. CONCLUSIONS: The dose delivered to the rectal wall and bulb of the penis is significantly reduced with treatment plans based on the MRI-delineated prostate compared with the CT-delineated prostate, allowing a dose escalation of 2.0-7.0 Gy for the same rectal wall dose. The interobserver coverage was the same for CT and MRI delineation of the prostate. A statistically significant difference in position between the CT- and MRI-delineated rectum was observed, probably owing to a different tabletop and use of knee support.
Authors: Amit Roy; Olga Green; Randall Brenneman; Walter Bosch; Hiram A Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Brian C Baumann Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 3.121
Authors: Karen Buch; Tye Morancy; Irving Kaplan; Muhammad M Qureshi; Ariel E Hirsch; Neil M Rofksy; Edward Holupka; Renee Oismueller; Robert Hawliczek; Thomas H Helbich; B Nicolas Bloch Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2014-10-28
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Eric S Paulson; Kiaran McGee; Neelam Tyagi; Yanle Hu; James Balter; John Bayouth Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Jacqueline Vock; Daniel Vetterli; Peter Manser; Roland Bigler; Jan Tille; Axel Madlung; Frank Behrensmeier; Roberto Mini; Daniel M Aebersold Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2008-10-20 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Ima Paydar; Brian S Kim; Robyn A Cyr; Harriss Rashid; Amna Anjum; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 6.244