Literature DB >> 20630667

Can images obtained with high field strength magnetic resonance imaging reduce contouring variability of the prostate?

Nawaid Usmani1, Ron Sloboda, Wafa Kamal, Sunita Ghosh, Nadeem Pervez, John Pedersen, Don Yee, Brita Danielson, Albert Murtha, John Amanie, Tara Monajemi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to determine whether there is less contouring variability of the prostate using higher-strength magnetic resonance images (MRI) compared with standard MRI and computed tomography (CT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty patients treated with prostate brachytherapy were accrued to a prospective study that included the acquisition of 1.5-T MR and CT images at specified time points. A subset of 10 patients had additional 3.0-T MR images acquired at the same time as their 1.5-T MR scans. Images from each of these patients were contoured by 5 radiation oncologists, with a random subset of patients repeated to quantify intraobserver contouring variability. To minimize bias in contouring the prostate, the image sets were placed in folders in a random order with all identifiers removed from the images.
RESULTS: Although there was less interobserver contouring variability in the overall prostate volumes in 1.5-T MRI compared with 3.0-T MRI (p < 0.01), there was no significant differences in contouring variability in the different regions of the prostate between 1.5-T MRI and 3.0-T MRI. MRI demonstrated significantly less interobserver contouring variability in both 1.5-T and 3.0-T compared with CT in overall prostate volumes (p < 0.01, p = 0.01), with the greatest benefits being appreciated in the base of the prostate. Overall, there was less intraobserver contouring variability than interobserver contouring variability for all of the measurements analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of 3.0-T MRI does not demonstrate a significant improvement in contouring variability compared with 1.5-T MRI, although both magnetic strengths demonstrated less contouring variability compared with CT.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20630667     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.03.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  7 in total

1.  Critical discussion of evaluation parameters for inter-observer variability in target definition for radiation therapy.

Authors:  I Fotina; C Lütgendorf-Caucig; M Stock; R Pötter; D Georg
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Canadian prostate brachytherapy in 2012.

Authors:  Mira Keyes; Juanita Crook; W James Morris; Gerard Morton; Tom Pickles; Nawaid Usmani; Eric Vigneault
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Effect of pulse sequence parameter selection on signal strength in positive-contrast MRI markers for MRI-based prostate postimplant assessment.

Authors:  Tze Yee Lim; Rajat J Kudchadker; Jihong Wang; R Jason Stafford; Christopher MacLellan; Arvind Rao; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Single blind randomized phase III trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Irene M Lips; Uulke A van der Heide; Karin Haustermans; Emile N J T van Lin; Floris Pos; Stefan P G Franken; Alexis N T J Kotte; Carla H van Gils; Marco van Vulpen
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 5.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria® external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part I of II.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-10-20

6.  Fusion of Intraoperative Transrectal Ultrasound Images with Post-implant Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Guila Delouya; Jean-Francois Carrier; Renée Xavier-Larouche; Yannick Hervieux; Dominic Béliveau-Nadeau; David Donath; Daniel Taussky
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-03-29

7.  Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Daniel R Henderson; Alison C Tree; Kevin J Harrington; Nicholas J van As
Journal:  Medicines (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.