Maximilian P Schmid1, Nicole Nesvacil2, Richard Pötter3, Gernot Kronreif4, Christian Kirisits3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: maximilian.schmid@akhwien.at. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 4. Austrian Center for Medical Innovation and Technology - ACMIT, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the maximum high risk clinical target volume (CTVHR) dimensions and image quality between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and computed tomography (CT) in image guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) of locally advanced cervical cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with radiochemotherapy and IGABT between 09/2012-05/2013 were included in this study. T2-weighted MRI (1.5 tesla), TRUS and CT were performed before (MRIpreBT, TRUSpreBT) and/or after (MRIBT, TRUSBT and CTBT) insertion of the applicator. 3D TRUS image acquisition was done with a customized US stepper device and software. The HR CTV was defined on 3D image sequences acquired with different imaging modalities by one blinded observer, in accordance to the GEC-ESTRO recommendations for MRI-based target volume delineation, as the complete cervical mass including the tumour, any suspicious areas of parametrial involvement and the normal cervical stroma. Maximum HR CTV width and thickness were measured on transversal planes. Image quality was classified using the following scoring system: Grade 0: not depicted, Grade 1: inability to discriminate, margin not recognizable, Grade 2: fair discrimination, margin indistinct, Grade 3: excellent discrimination, margin distinct. Descriptive statistics, mean differences between the groups, with MRIBT as reference, and a paired t-test were calculated. RESULTS: Images from 19 patients (FIGO IB: 3, IIB: 9, IIIB: 5, IVB: 2) were available for analysis. The mean difference in maximum HR CTV width of TRUSBT, TRUSpreBT, MRIpreBT, CTBT to MRIBT was 0.0mm±4.7 (n.s.), -1.1mm±5.6 (n.s.), 0.7mm±6.4 (n.s.) and 13.8mm±6.7 (p<0.001). The mean difference in maximum HR CTV thickness of TRUSBT, TRUSpreBT, MRIpreBT, CTBT to MRIBT was -3.4mm±5.9 (p=0.037), -3.4mm±4.2 (p<0.001), 2.0mm±6.1 (n.s.) and 13.9mm±6.3 (p<0.001). Mean scores of image quality of the target volume was 2.9 for TRUSpreBT, 2.3 for TRUSBT, 2.9 for MRIpreBT, 2.7 for MRIBT and 2.1 for CTBT. CONCLUSION: For the assessment of the HR CTV in IGABT of cervical cancer, TRUS is within the intraobserver variability of MRI. TRUS is superior to CT as it yields systematically smaller deviations from MRI, with good to excellent image quality. Small differences of TRUS HR CTV thickness are likely related to differences in image slice orientation and compression of the cervix by the TRUS probe before insertion of the brachytherapy applicator.
PURPOSE: To compare the maximum high risk clinical target volume (CTVHR) dimensions and image quality between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and computed tomography (CT) in image guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) of locally advanced cervical cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with radiochemotherapy and IGABT between 09/2012-05/2013 were included in this study. T2-weighted MRI (1.5 tesla), TRUS and CT were performed before (MRIpreBT, TRUSpreBT) and/or after (MRIBT, TRUSBT and CTBT) insertion of the applicator. 3D TRUS image acquisition was done with a customized US stepper device and software. The HR CTV was defined on 3D image sequences acquired with different imaging modalities by one blinded observer, in accordance to the GEC-ESTRO recommendations for MRI-based target volume delineation, as the complete cervical mass including the tumour, any suspicious areas of parametrial involvement and the normal cervical stroma. Maximum HR CTV width and thickness were measured on transversal planes. Image quality was classified using the following scoring system: Grade 0: not depicted, Grade 1: inability to discriminate, margin not recognizable, Grade 2: fair discrimination, margin indistinct, Grade 3: excellent discrimination, margin distinct. Descriptive statistics, mean differences between the groups, with MRIBT as reference, and a paired t-test were calculated. RESULTS: Images from 19 patients (FIGO IB: 3, IIB: 9, IIIB: 5, IVB: 2) were available for analysis. The mean difference in maximum HR CTV width of TRUSBT, TRUSpreBT, MRIpreBT, CTBT to MRIBT was 0.0mm±4.7 (n.s.), -1.1mm±5.6 (n.s.), 0.7mm±6.4 (n.s.) and 13.8mm±6.7 (p<0.001). The mean difference in maximum HR CTV thickness of TRUSBT, TRUSpreBT, MRIpreBT, CTBT to MRIBT was -3.4mm±5.9 (p=0.037), -3.4mm±4.2 (p<0.001), 2.0mm±6.1 (n.s.) and 13.9mm±6.3 (p<0.001). Mean scores of image quality of the target volume was 2.9 for TRUSpreBT, 2.3 for TRUSBT, 2.9 for MRIpreBT, 2.7 for MRIBT and 2.1 for CTBT. CONCLUSION: For the assessment of the HR CTV in IGABT of cervical cancer, TRUS is within the intraobserver variability of MRI. TRUS is superior to CT as it yields systematically smaller deviations from MRI, with good to excellent image quality. Small differences of TRUS HR CTV thickness are likely related to differences in image slice orientation and compression of the cervix by the TRUS probe before insertion of the brachytherapy applicator.
Authors: José Richart; Vicente Carmona-Meseguer; Teresa García-Martínez; Antonio Herreros; Antonio Otal; Santiago Pellejero; Ana Tornero-López; José Pérez-Calatayud Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: Stéphanie Smet; Nicole Nesvacil; Johannes Knoth; Alina Sturdza; Dina Najjari-Jamal; Filip Jelinek; Gernot Kronreif; Richard Pötter; Joachim Widder; Christian Kirisits; Maximilian P Schmid Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Umesh Mahantshetty; Susovan Banerjee; Alina Sturdza; Christian Kirisits; Katarina Majercakova; Maximilian P Schmid; Vinod Hande; Richard Pötter Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2021-10-25
Authors: Winnie Wing Ling Yip; Joyce Siu Yu Wong; Venus Wan Yan Lee; Frank Chi Sing Wong; Stewart Yuk Tung Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2017-10-30
Authors: Mario Federico; Carmen Rosa Hernandez-Socorro; Ivone Ribeiro; Jesus Gonzalez Martin; Maria Dolores Rey-Baltar Oramas; Marta Lloret Saez-Bravo; Pedro Carlos Lara Jimenez Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.481