Meng-Sang Chew1, Jinyu Xue2, Chris Houser3, Vladimir Misic3, Junsheng Cao3, Thomas Cornwell4, Jay Handler5, Yan Yu3, Eric Gressen3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ. Electronic address: Xue-jinyu@cooperhealth.edu. 3. Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Frankford Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Urology, Frankford Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the impact of seed localization, as performed by different observers using linked (125)I seeds, on postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy and, to compare transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based with CT-based approach for the dosimetric outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen permanent prostate implants were conducted using linked (125)I seeds. Postimplant TRUS and CT images were acquired and prostate glands were, after implantation, delineated on all images by a single oncologist, who had performed all 19 seeding procedures. Six observers independently localized the seeds on both TRUS and CT images, from which the principle dosimetric parameters V(100) (volume of prostate that received the prescribed dose), V(150) (volume of prostate that received 150% of the prescribed dose), and D(90) (minimal dose delivered to 90% of the prostate) were directly calculated for each patient. A single-factor analysis of variance was first applied to determine interobserver variability in seed localization. A nonparametric comparison of the approach using TRUS and CT was then carried out by the Wilcoxon paired-sample test. RESULTS: Analysis from the analysis of variance for TRUS showed that the null hypothesis for equal means, could not be rejected for all six observers based on a significance level alpha=0.05. TRUS-based and CT-based approaches were then cross compared by the Wilcoxon paired-sample test, which suggested that the null hypothesis was insignificant for V(100) and D(90), but was significant for V(150). CONCLUSIONS: Both TRUS- and CT-imaging modalities provided indistinguishable postimplant dosimetry results as far as V(100) and D(90) were concerned. There was comparable observer independence between TRUS- and CT-based seed localization for linked-seed implant procedures. With other advantages that TRUS-imaging modality had over CT in the evaluation of postimplant dosimetry, TRUS would be a preferred choice in conjunction with linked seeds for intraoperative procedures in prostate brachytherapy.
PURPOSE: To study the impact of seed localization, as performed by different observers using linked (125)I seeds, on postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy and, to compare transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based with CT-based approach for the dosimetric outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen permanent prostate implants were conducted using linked (125)I seeds. Postimplant TRUS and CT images were acquired and prostate glands were, after implantation, delineated on all images by a single oncologist, who had performed all 19 seeding procedures. Six observers independently localized the seeds on both TRUS and CT images, from which the principle dosimetric parameters V(100) (volume of prostate that received the prescribed dose), V(150) (volume of prostate that received 150% of the prescribed dose), and D(90) (minimal dose delivered to 90% of the prostate) were directly calculated for each patient. A single-factor analysis of variance was first applied to determine interobserver variability in seed localization. A nonparametric comparison of the approach using TRUS and CT was then carried out by the Wilcoxon paired-sample test. RESULTS: Analysis from the analysis of variance for TRUS showed that the null hypothesis for equal means, could not be rejected for all six observers based on a significance level alpha=0.05. TRUS-based and CT-based approaches were then cross compared by the Wilcoxon paired-sample test, which suggested that the null hypothesis was insignificant for V(100) and D(90), but was significant for V(150). CONCLUSIONS: Both TRUS- and CT-imaging modalities provided indistinguishable postimplant dosimetry results as far as V(100) and D(90) were concerned. There was comparable observer independence between TRUS- and CT-based seed localization for linked-seed implant procedures. With other advantages that TRUS-imaging modality had over CT in the evaluation of postimplant dosimetry, TRUS would be a preferred choice in conjunction with linked seeds for intraoperative procedures in prostate brachytherapy.