Literature DB >> 21517129

Investigating the clinical aspects of using CT vs. CT-MRI images during organ delineation and treatment planning in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

A Tzikas1, P Karaiskos, N Papanikolaou, P Sandilos, E Koutsouveli, E Lavdas, C Scarleas, K Dardoufas, B K Lind, P Mavroidis.   

Abstract

In order to apply highly conformal dose distributions, which are characterized by steep dose fall-offs, it is necessary to know the exact target location and extension. This study aims at evaluating the impact of using combined CT-MRI images in organ delineation compared to using CT images alone, on the clinical results. For 10 prostate cancer patients, the respective CT and MRI images at treatment position were acquired. The CTV was delineated using the CT and MRI images, separately, whereas bladder and rectum were delineated using the CT images alone. Based on the CT and MRI images, two CTVs were produced for each patient. The mutual information algorithm was used in the fusion of the two image sets. In this way, the structures drawn on the MRI images were transferred to the CT images in order to produce the treatment plans. For each set of structures of each patient, IMRT and 3D-CRT treatment plans were produced. The individual treatment plans were compared using the biologically effective uniform dose () and the complication-free tumor control probability (P(+)) concepts together with the DVHs of the targets and organs at risk and common dosimetric criteria. For the IMRT treatment, at the optimum dose level of the average CT and CT-MRI delineated CTV dose distributions, the P(+) values are 74.7% in both cases for a of 91.5 Gy and 92.1 Gy, respectively. The respective average total control probabilities, PB are 90.0% and 90.2%, whereas the corresponding average total complication probabilities, P(I) are 15.3% and 15.4%. Similarly, for the 3D-CRT treatment, the average P(+) values are 42.5% and 46.7%, respectively for a of 86.4 Gy and 86.7 Gy, respectively. The respective average P(B) values are 80.0% and 80.6%, whereas the corresponding average P(I) values are 37.4% and 33.8%, respectively. For both radiation modalities, the improvement mainly stems from the better sparing of rectum. According to these results, the expected clinical effectiveness of IMRT can be increased by a maximum ΔP(+) of around 0.9%, whereas of 3D-CRT by about 4.2% when combined CT-MRI delineation is performed instead of using CT images alone. It is apparent that in both IMRT and 3D-CRT radiation modalities, the better knowledge of the CTV extension improved the produced dose distribution. It is shown that the CTV is irradiated more effectively, while the complication probabilities of bladder and rectum, which is the principal organs at risk, are lower in the CT-MRI based treatment plans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21517129     DOI: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1533-0338


  7 in total

1.  Time management in radiation oncology: evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the DEGRO-QUIRO trial.

Authors:  L Keilholz; J Willner; H-J Thiel; N Zamboglou; H Sack; W Popp
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  A study of segment weight optimization with the CMS XiO step-and-shoot IMRT technique for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ramachandran Prabhakar; Jim Cramb; Christopher Gehrke; Justin Anderson; Judy Andrews
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Target definition in radiotherapy of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging only workflow.

Authors:  Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Emilia Persson; Christian Gustafsson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Petra Ambolt; Silke Engelholm; Per Nilsson; Lars E Olsson
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-03-20

4.  Clinical and radiobiological evaluation of a method for planning target volume generation dependent on organ-at-risk exclusions in magnetic resonance imaging-based prostate radiotherapy.

Authors:  Brian Ruiz; Yuanming Feng
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-12-07

5.  Positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging combined with computed tomography in tumor volume delineation: A case report.

Authors:  Qi-Ping Zhou; Yu-Hua Zhao; Lei Gao
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 1.337

6.  Safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer without treatment planning MRI.

Authors:  Katherine Amarell; Anna Jaysing; Christopher Mendez; Jonathan A Haas; Seth R Blacksburg; Aaron E Katz; Astrid Sanchez; Angela Tong; Todd Carpenter; Matthew Witten; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Practice patterns of radiation therapy technology in Australia: results of a national audit.

Authors:  Pete Bridge; Shane Dempsey; Eileen Giles; Sharon Maresse; Giulia McCorkell; Craig Opie; Caroline Wright; Mary-Ann Carmichael
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2015-09-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.