PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of two different image-based postimplant dosimetry methods in permanent seed implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between October 1999 and October 2002, 150 patients with low-risk prostate carcinoma were treated with (125)I and (103)Pd in our institution. A CT-MRI image fusion protocol was used in 21 consecutive patients treated with exclusive brachytherapy. The accuracy and reproducibility of the method was calculated, and then the CT-based dosimetry was compared with the CT-MRI-based dosimetry using the dose-volume histogram (DVH) related parameters recommended by the American Brachytherapy Society and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. RESULTS: Our method for CT-MRI image fusion was accurate and reproducible (median shift <1 mm). Differences in prostate volume were found, depending on the image modality used. Quality assurance DVH-related parameters strongly depended on the image modality (CT vs. CT-MRI): V(100) = 82% vs. 88%, p < 0.05. D(90) = 96% vs. 115%, p < 0.05. Those results depend on the institutional implant technique and reflect the importance of lowering inter- and intraobserver discrepancies when outlining prostate and organs at risk for postimplant dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography-MRI fused images allow accurate determination of prostate size, significantly improving the dosimetric evaluation based on DVH analysis. This provides a consistent method to judge a prostate seed implant's quality.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of two different image-based postimplant dosimetry methods in permanent seed implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between October 1999 and October 2002, 150 patients with low-risk prostate carcinoma were treated with (125)I and (103)Pd in our institution. A CT-MRI image fusion protocol was used in 21 consecutive patients treated with exclusive brachytherapy. The accuracy and reproducibility of the method was calculated, and then the CT-based dosimetry was compared with the CT-MRI-based dosimetry using the dose-volume histogram (DVH) related parameters recommended by the American Brachytherapy Society and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. RESULTS: Our method for CT-MRI image fusion was accurate and reproducible (median shift <1 mm). Differences in prostate volume were found, depending on the image modality used. Quality assurance DVH-related parameters strongly depended on the image modality (CT vs. CT-MRI): V(100) = 82% vs. 88%, p < 0.05. D(90) = 96% vs. 115%, p < 0.05. Those results depend on the institutional implant technique and reflect the importance of lowering inter- and intraobserver discrepancies when outlining prostate and organs at risk for postimplant dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography-MRI fused images allow accurate determination of prostate size, significantly improving the dosimetric evaluation based on DVH analysis. This provides a consistent method to judge a prostate seed implant's quality.
Authors: Geoffrey V Martin; Thomas J Pugh; Usama Mahmood; Rajat J Kudchadker; Jihong Wang; Teresa L Bruno; Tharakeswara Bathala; Pierre Blanchard; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jingfei Ma; Marinus A Moerland; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Rajat J Kudchadker; Kristy K Brock; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Hualiang Zhong; Ning Wen; James J Gordon; Mohamed A Elshaikh; Benjamin Movsas; Indrin J Chetty Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jeremiah W Sanders; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Chad A Levitt; Tharakeswara Bathala; Rajat J Kudchadker; Chad Tang; Teresa L Bruno; Christine Starks; Edwin Santiago; Michelle Wells; Carl P Weaver; Jingfei Ma; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038