Tiina Seppälä1, Harri Visapää2, Juhani Collan2, Mika Kapanen2, Annette Beule3, Mauri Kouri2, Mikko Tenhunen2, Kauko Saarilahti2. 1. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, POB 180, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. tiina.seppala@hus.fi. 2. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, POB 180, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. 3. HUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, POB 180, 00029, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the conversion of prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT) target definition from CT-based planning into an MRI-only-based planning procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the CT- and MRI-only-based RT planning protocols, 30 prostate cancer patients were imaged in the RT fixation position. Two physicians delineated the prostate in both CT and T2-weighted MRI images. The CT and MRI images were coregistered based on gold seeds and anatomic borders of the prostate. The uncertainty of the coregistration, as well as differences in target volumes and uncertainty of contour delineation were investigated. Conversion of margins and dose constraints from CT- to MRI-only-based treatment planning was assessed. RESULTS: On average, the uncertainty of image coregistration was 0.4 ± 0.5 mm (one standard deviation, SD), 0.9 ± 0.8 mm and 0.9 ± 0.9 mm in the lateral, anterior-posterior and base-apex direction, respectively. The average ratio of the prostate volume between CT and MRI was 1.20 ± 0.15 (one SD). Compared to the CT-based contours, the MRI-based contours were on average 2-7 mm smaller in the apex, 0-1 mm smaller in the rectal direction and 1-4 mm smaller elsewhere. CONCLUSION: When converting from a CT-based planning procedure to an MRI-based one, the overall planning target volumes (PTV) are prominently reduced only in the apex. The prostate margins and dose constraints can be retained by this conversion.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate the conversion of prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT) target definition from CT-based planning into an MRI-only-based planning procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the CT- and MRI-only-based RT planning protocols, 30 prostate cancerpatients were imaged in the RT fixation position. Two physicians delineated the prostate in both CT and T2-weighted MRI images. The CT and MRI images were coregistered based on gold seeds and anatomic borders of the prostate. The uncertainty of the coregistration, as well as differences in target volumes and uncertainty of contour delineation were investigated. Conversion of margins and dose constraints from CT- to MRI-only-based treatment planning was assessed. RESULTS: On average, the uncertainty of image coregistration was 0.4 ± 0.5 mm (one standard deviation, SD), 0.9 ± 0.8 mm and 0.9 ± 0.9 mm in the lateral, anterior-posterior and base-apex direction, respectively. The average ratio of the prostate volume between CT and MRI was 1.20 ± 0.15 (one SD). Compared to the CT-based contours, the MRI-based contours were on average 2-7 mm smaller in the apex, 0-1 mm smaller in the rectal direction and 1-4 mm smaller elsewhere. CONCLUSION: When converting from a CT-based planning procedure to an MRI-based one, the overall planning target volumes (PTV) are prominently reduced only in the apex. The prostate margins and dose constraints can be retained by this conversion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bladder; Imaging; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Organs at risk; Rectum
Authors: Mika Kapanen; Juhani Collan; Annette Beule; Tiina Seppälä; Kauko Saarilahti; Mikko Tenhunen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Juha Korhonen; Mika Kapanen; Jani Keyriläinen; Tiina Seppälä; Laura Tuomikoski; Mikko Tenhunen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Young K Lee; Marc Bollet; Geoffrey Charles-Edwards; Maggie A Flower; Martin O Leach; Helen McNair; Elizabeth Moore; Carl Rowbottom; Steve Webb Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Evert J Van Limbergen; Emile N van Lin; Joep G H van Roermund; Philippe Lambin Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.411
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