PURPOSE: To determine the prostate volumes defined by using MRI and CT scans, as well as the difference between prostate delineation in MRI and CT in three dimensions (3D). A further goal was to use MRI to identify subgroups of patients in whom seminal vesicle irradiation can be avoided. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 294 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (MRI stages: T(1), 16 [5%]; T(2), 84 [29%]; T(3), 191 [65%]; T(4), 3 [1%]) underwent pelvic CT and MRI scans before intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning. 3D images were used to compare the prostate volumes defined by superimposed MR and CT images. Prostate volumes were calculated in cm(3). RESULTS: The mean prostate volume defined by MRI (44.3 cm(3) [range, 8.8-182.8 cm(3)]) was 35% smaller than that defined by CT (68.5 cm(3) [range, 15.2-241.3 cm(3)]). The areas of nonagreement were observed predominantly in the most superior and inferior portions of the prostate. The incidence of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) identified by MRI was 63% (n = 182 of 290). The median length of SVI was 2.6 cm (range, 1.1-4.7 cm; 62% of the median SV length). The low-risk patients (59%, n = 171 of 290) calculated by applying the Roach and Diaz formula had a SVI rate of 57% (n = 97 of 171), the high-risk patients (41%, n = 119 of 290) of 71% (n = 85 of 119). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MRI, CT scans overestimate prostate volume by 35%. CT-MRI image fusion-based treatment planning allows more accurate prediction of the correct staging and more precise target volume identification in prostate cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To determine the prostate volumes defined by using MRI and CT scans, as well as the difference between prostate delineation in MRI and CT in three dimensions (3D). A further goal was to use MRI to identify subgroups of patients in whom seminal vesicle irradiation can be avoided. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 294 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (MRI stages: T(1), 16 [5%]; T(2), 84 [29%]; T(3), 191 [65%]; T(4), 3 [1%]) underwent pelvic CT and MRI scans before intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning. 3D images were used to compare the prostate volumes defined by superimposed MR and CT images. Prostate volumes were calculated in cm(3). RESULTS: The mean prostate volume defined by MRI (44.3 cm(3) [range, 8.8-182.8 cm(3)]) was 35% smaller than that defined by CT (68.5 cm(3) [range, 15.2-241.3 cm(3)]). The areas of nonagreement were observed predominantly in the most superior and inferior portions of the prostate. The incidence of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) identified by MRI was 63% (n = 182 of 290). The median length of SVI was 2.6 cm (range, 1.1-4.7 cm; 62% of the median SV length). The low-risk patients (59%, n = 171 of 290) calculated by applying the Roach and Diaz formula had a SVI rate of 57% (n = 97 of 171), the high-risk patients (41%, n = 119 of 290) of 71% (n = 85 of 119). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MRI, CT scans overestimate prostate volume by 35%. CT-MRI image fusion-based treatment planning allows more accurate prediction of the correct staging and more precise target volume identification in prostate cancerpatients.
Authors: M L Schiebler; M D Schnall; H M Pollack; R E Lenkinski; J E Tomaszewski; A J Wein; R Whittington; W Rauschning; H Y Kressel Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Larry Kestin; Neal Goldstein; Frank Vicini; Di Yan; Howard Korman; Alvaro Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P Narayan; V Gajendran; S P Taylor; A Tewari; J C Presti; R Leidich; R Lo; K Palmer; K Shinohara; J T Spaulding Journal: Urology Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: H Hricak; S White; D Vigneron; J Kurhanewicz; A Kosco; D Levin; J Weiss; P Narayan; P R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Lorentini; M Amichetti; L Spiazzi; S Tonoli; S M Magrini; F Fellin; M Schwarz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M Geier; S T Astner; M N Duma; V Jacob; C Nieder; J Putzhammer; C Winkler; M Molls; H Geinitz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: L Van den Bergh; S Isebaert; M Koole; R Oyen; S Joniau; E Lerut; C M Deroose; F De Keyzer; H Van Poppel; K Haustermans Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.621