Literature DB >> 22727474

Magnetic resonance imaging-based treatment planning for prostate brachytherapy.

Jeffrey M Albert1, David A Swanson, Thomas J Pugh, Michael Zhang, Teresa L Bruno, Rajat J Kudchadker, Steven J Frank.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is the standard imaging modality for planning prostate brachytherapy. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides greater anatomic detail than TRUS. We compared treatment plans generated using TRUS, endorectal coil MRI (erMRI), and standard body array coil MRI (sMRI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment plans were used from patients treated with permanent, stranded-seed (125)I brachytherapy in a prospective trial. All men underwent pretreatment planning based on TRUS, and all underwent erMRI before treatment and sMRI 30 days after the implant. Treatments for 20 consecutive patients were replanned on sMRI and erMRI images by investigators blinded to TRUS-based plans. Prostate volume/dimensions, radioactivity-to-prostate-volume ratio, and dosimetric parameters were compared.
RESULTS: Compared with TRUS, mean prostate volume measured by erMRI was smaller, medial-lateral diameter was larger, and anterior-posterior diameter was smaller, suggesting that the endorectal coil produced anatomic distortions. Craniocaudal prostate length was smaller on both types of MRI than on TRUS, suggesting that TRUS overestimates prostate length. Activity per volume was 7.5% lower for plans based on sMRI than on TRUS (0.901 vs. 0.974mCi/cm(3), p<0.001). sMRI plans had similar coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) (dose to 90% of the prostate [D(90)] 116.6% sMRI vs. 117.5% TRUS, p=0.526) and improved dose homogeneity (percentage of PTV receiving 150% of the prescription dose [V(150)] 47.4% sMRI vs. 53.8% TRUS, p=0.001 and percentage of PTV receiving 200% of the prescription dose [V(200)] 16.6% sMRI vs. 19.2% TRUS, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Staging erMRI should not be routinely used for treatment planning because it produces anatomic distortion. sMRI may have treatment planning advantages over TRUS because of superior soft-tissue delineation of the prostate and adjacent normal tissue structures.
Copyright © 2013 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22727474     DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2012.03.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brachytherapy        ISSN: 1538-4721            Impact factor:   2.362


  11 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of advanced technologies in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging across the prostate brachytherapy workflow.

Authors:  P Blanchard; C Ménard; S J Frank
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance image guided brachytherapy.

Authors:  Kari Tanderup; Akila N Viswanathan; Christian Kirisits; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.934

4.  Permanent prostate brachytherapy pubic arch evaluation with diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Geoffrey V Martin; Thomas J Pugh; Usama Mahmood; Rajat J Kudchadker; Jihong Wang; Teresa L Bruno; Tharakeswara Bathala; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Improved dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy using high resolution contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Karen Buch; Tye Morancy; Irving Kaplan; Muhammad M Qureshi; Ariel E Hirsch; Neil M Rofksy; Edward Holupka; Renee Oismueller; Robert Hawliczek; Thomas H Helbich; B Nicolas Bloch
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2014-10-28

6.  Evaluation of the MIM Symphony treatment planning system for low-dose-rate- prostate brachytherapy.

Authors:  Sandeep K Dhanesar; Tze Y Lim; Weiliang Du; Teresa L Bruno; Steven J Frank; Rajat J Kudchadker
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  The association between the outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the anthropometric measurements of the prostate by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sompol Permpongkosol; Supanun Aramay; Thawanrat Vattanakul; Sith Phongkitkarun
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 8.  The current role of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Olivier Rouviere; Paul Cezar Moldovan
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-12-11

9.  Radiotherapy planning using MRI.

Authors:  Maria A Schmidt; Geoffrey S Payne
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series.

Authors:  Yonina R Murciano-Goroff; Luciant D Wolfsberger; Arti Parekh; Fiona M Fennessy; Kemal Tuncali; Peter F Orio; Thomas R Niedermayr; W Warren Suh; Phillip M Devlin; Clare Mary C Tempany; Emily H Neubauer Sugar; Desmond A O'Farrell; Graeme Steele; Michael O'Leary; Ivan Buzurovic; Antonio L Damato; Robert A Cormack; Andriy Y Fedorov; Paul L Nguyen
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.