Literature DB >> 21708426

MRI- versus CT-based volume delineation of lumpectomy cavity in supine position in breast-conserving therapy: an exploratory study.

Marina Giezen1, Erik Kouwenhoven, Astrid N Scholten, Emile G Coerkamp, Mark Heijenbrok, Wim P A Jansen, Mirjam E Mast, Anna L Petoukhova, Henk Struikmans.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for lumpectomy cavity (LC) volume delineation in supine radiotherapy treatment position and to assess the interobserver variability. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 15 breast cancer patients underwent a planning CT and directly afterward MRI in supine radiotherapy treatment position. Then, 4 observers (2 radiation oncologists and 2 radiologists) delineated the LC on the CT and MRI scans and assessed the cavity visualization score (CVS). The CVS, LC volume, conformity index (CI), mean shift of the center of mass (COM), with the standard deviation, were quantified for both CT and MRI.
RESULTS: The CVS showed that MRI and CT provide about equal optimal visibility of the LC. If the CVS was high, magnetic resonance imaging provided more detail of the interfaces of the LC seroma with the unaffected GBT. MRI also pictured in more detail the interfaces of axillary seromas (if present) with their surroundings and their relationship to the LC. Three observers delineated smaller, and one observer larger, LC volumes comparing the MRI- and CT-derived delineations. The mean ± standard deviation CI was 32% ± 25% for MRI and 52% ± 21% for CT. The mean ± standard deviation COM shift was 11 ± 10 mm (range 1-36) for MRI and 4 ± 3 mm (range 1-10) for CT.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI does not add additional information to CT in cases in which the CVS is assessed as low. The conformity (CI) is lower for MRI than for CT, especially at a low CVS owing to greater COM shifts for MRI, probably caused by inadequate visibility of the surgical clips on magnetic resonance (MR) images. The COM shifts seriously dictate a decline in the CI more than the variability of the LC volumes does. In cases in which MRI provides additional information, MRI must be combined with the CT/surgical clip data. Copyright Â
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21708426     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.008

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


  15 in total

1.  Impact of a Novel Bioabsorbable Implant on Radiation Treatment Planning for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Michael J Cross; Gail S Lebovic; Joseph Ross; Scott Jones; Arnold Smith; Steven Harms
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  MRI-only treatment planning: benefits and challenges.

Authors:  Amir M Owrangi; Peter B Greer; Carri K Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Using synthetic CT for partial brain radiation therapy: Impact on image guidance.

Authors:  Eric D Morris; Ryan G Price; Joshua Kim; Lonni Schultz; M Salim Siddiqui; Indrin Chetty; Carri Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04-06

4.  Post-lumpectomy CT-guided tumor bed delineation for breast boost and partial breast irradiation: Can additional pre- and postoperative imaging reduce interobserver variability?

Authors:  Mariska D DEN Hartogh; Marielle E P Philippens; Iris E VAN Dam; Catharina E Kleynen; Robbert J H A Tersteeg; Alexis N T J Kotte; Marco VAN Vulpen; Bram VAN Asselen; Desirée H J G VAN DEN Bongard
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  MRI Reduces Variation of Contouring for Boost Clinical Target Volume in Breast Cancer Patients Without Surgical Clips in the Tumour Bed.

Authors:  Noora Al-Hammadi; Palmira Caparrotti; Saju Divakar; Mohamed Riyas; Suparna Halsnad Chandramouli; Rabih Hammoud; Jillian Hayes; Maeve Mc Garry; Satheesh Prasad Paloor; Primoz Petric
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 2.991

6.  The Impact of Different Simulation Modalities on Target Volume Delineation in Breast-Conserving Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Meng Jin; Xia Liu; Jiabin Ma; Xiansong Sun; Hongnan Zhen; Jing Shen; Zhikai Liu; Xin Lian; Zheng Miao; Ke Hu; Xiaorong Hou; Fuquan Zhang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 3.989

7.  MRI and CT imaging for preoperative target volume delineation in breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  Mariska D den Hartogh; Marielle E P Philippens; Iris E van Dam; Catharina E Kleynen; Robbert J H A Tersteeg; Ruud M Pijnappel; Alexis N T J Kotte; Helena M Verkooijen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marco van Vulpen; Bram van Asselen; Hjg Desirée van den Bongard
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Target volume delineation in breast conserving radiotherapy: are co-registered CT and MR images of added value?

Authors:  Mirjam Mast; Emile Coerkamp; Mark Heijenbrok; Astrid Scholten; Wim Jansen; Erik Kouwenhoven; Jasper Nijkamp; Stephanie de Waard; Anna Petoukhova; Henk Struikmans
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Uncertainties in target volume delineation in radiotherapy - are they relevant and what can we do about them?

Authors:  Barbara Segedin; Primoz Petric
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 2.991

10.  Analysis of the variability among radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical tumor bed based on 4D-CT.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Jianbin Li; Jun Xing; Min Xu; Qian Shao; Tingyong Fan; Bing Guo; Shanshan Liu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-10-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.