PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric results between MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning in permanent prostate brachytherapy, and to estimate the accuracy of MRI-based preplanning by comparing with CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients were entered in this prospective study with written informed consent. MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning were performed. The seed and needle locations were identical according to MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning. MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning were compared using DVH-related parameters. Following brachytherapy, the accuracy of the MRI-based preplanning was evaluated by comparing it with CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. RESULTS: Mean MRI-based prostate volume was slightly underestimated (0.73 cc in mean volume) in comparison to TRUS-based volume. There were no significant differences in the mean DVH-related parameters except with rectal V(100)(cc) between TRUS-based and MRI-based preplanning. Mean rectal V(100)(cc) was 0.74 cc in TRUS-based and 0.29 cc in MRI-based preplanning, respectively, and the values demonstrated a statistical difference. There was no statistical difference in mean rectal V(150)(cc), and rectal V(100)(cc) between MRI-based preplanning and CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. CONCLUSION: Prostate volume estimation and DVH-related parameters in MRI-based preplanning were almost identical to TRUS-based preplanning. From the results of CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry, MRI-based preplanning was therefore found to be a reliable and useful modality, as well as being helpful for TRUS-based preplanning. MRI-based preplanning can more accurately predict postimplant rectal dose than TRUS-based preplanning.
PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric results between MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning in permanent prostate brachytherapy, and to estimate the accuracy of MRI-based preplanning by comparing with CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients were entered in this prospective study with written informed consent. MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning were performed. The seed and needle locations were identical according to MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning. MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning were compared using DVH-related parameters. Following brachytherapy, the accuracy of the MRI-based preplanning was evaluated by comparing it with CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. RESULTS: Mean MRI-based prostate volume was slightly underestimated (0.73 cc in mean volume) in comparison to TRUS-based volume. There were no significant differences in the mean DVH-related parameters except with rectal V(100)(cc) between TRUS-based and MRI-based preplanning. Mean rectal V(100)(cc) was 0.74 cc in TRUS-based and 0.29 cc in MRI-based preplanning, respectively, and the values demonstrated a statistical difference. There was no statistical difference in mean rectal V(150)(cc), and rectal V(100)(cc) between MRI-based preplanning and CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. CONCLUSION: Prostate volume estimation and DVH-related parameters in MRI-based preplanning were almost identical to TRUS-based preplanning. From the results of CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry, MRI-based preplanning was therefore found to be a reliable and useful modality, as well as being helpful for TRUS-based preplanning. MRI-based preplanning can more accurately predict postimplant rectal dose than TRUS-based preplanning.
Authors: J Taylor Whaley; Lawrence B Levy; David A Swanson; Thomas J Pugh; Rajat J Kudchadker; Teresa L Bruno; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hyeli Park; Ja Young Kim; Bo Mi Lee; Sei Kyung Chang; Seung Young Ko; Sung Jun Kim; Dong Soo Park; Hyun Soo Shin Journal: Radiat Oncol J Date: 2011-09-30
Authors: Yonina R Murciano-Goroff; Luciant D Wolfsberger; Arti Parekh; Fiona M Fennessy; Kemal Tuncali; Peter F Orio; Thomas R Niedermayr; W Warren Suh; Phillip M Devlin; Clare Mary C Tempany; Emily H Neubauer Sugar; Desmond A O'Farrell; Graeme Steele; Michael O'Leary; Ivan Buzurovic; Antonio L Damato; Robert A Cormack; Andriy Y Fedorov; Paul L Nguyen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 3.481