Geoffrey V Martin1, Thomas J Pugh2, Usama Mahmood1, Rajat J Kudchadker3, Jihong Wang3, Teresa L Bruno1, Tharakeswara Bathala4, Steven J Frank5. 1. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 3. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Division of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 5. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: sjfrank@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pubic arch interference (PAI), when it occurs, is often a limiting factor for patients pursuing brachytherapy treatment of prostate cancer. Pre-brachytherapy pubic arch evaluation is often performed by CT or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but MRI has increasingly replaced these modalities for prostate cancer evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine if staging MRI could be used to evaluate PAI and compare it with these other imaging methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-one consecutive patients undergoing brachytherapy evaluation had pelvic MRI-, CT-, and TRUS-based brachytherapy simulation. Pubic arch overlap on T2-weighted MRI and CT was determined by contouring the prostate gland on its largest axial slice and superimposing this contour onto the pubic arch bones. The largest degree of overlap of the prostate gland on MRI and CT was used to predict the existence of PAI as determined by TRUS-based simulation. The correlation between prostate contour overlap was also compared between MRI and CT. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (48%) exhibited PAI on TRUS brachytherapy simulation evaluation. The average (±standard error) amount of prostate contour overlap on the pubic arch on CT was 2.9 ± 0.6 mm and on MRI was 2.0 ± 0.6 mm (linear correlation, R, of 0.783, p < 0.001). CT and MRI were equally predictive of PAI on TRUS evaluation (area under the curve = 0.75). CONCLUSION: Pre-brachytherapy pubic arch assessment with diagnostic MRI provides similar predictability of PAI compared with CT, potentially obviating the need for additional pre-brachytherapy CT in the setting of staging MRI.
PURPOSE: Pubic arch interference (PAI), when it occurs, is often a limiting factor for patients pursuing brachytherapy treatment of prostate cancer. Pre-brachytherapy pubic arch evaluation is often performed by CT or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but MRI has increasingly replaced these modalities for prostate cancer evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine if staging MRI could be used to evaluate PAI and compare it with these other imaging methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-one consecutive patients undergoing brachytherapy evaluation had pelvic MRI-, CT-, and TRUS-based brachytherapy simulation. Pubic arch overlap on T2-weighted MRI and CT was determined by contouring the prostate gland on its largest axial slice and superimposing this contour onto the pubic arch bones. The largest degree of overlap of the prostate gland on MRI and CT was used to predict the existence of PAI as determined by TRUS-based simulation. The correlation between prostate contour overlap was also compared between MRI and CT. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (48%) exhibited PAI on TRUS brachytherapy simulation evaluation. The average (±standard error) amount of prostate contour overlap on the pubic arch on CT was 2.9 ± 0.6 mm and on MRI was 2.0 ± 0.6 mm (linear correlation, R, of 0.783, p < 0.001). CT and MRI were equally predictive of PAI on TRUS evaluation (area under the curve = 0.75). CONCLUSION: Pre-brachytherapy pubic arch assessment with diagnostic MRI provides similar predictability of PAI compared with CT, potentially obviating the need for additional pre-brachytherapy CT in the setting of staging MRI.
Authors: S A Tincher; R Y Kim; M P Ezekiel; T Zinsli; J B Fiveash; D A Raben; A J Bueschen; D A Urban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey M Albert; David A Swanson; Thomas J Pugh; Michael Zhang; Teresa L Bruno; Rajat J Kudchadker; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jennifer M Hensel; Cynthia Ménard; Peter W M Chung; Michael F Milosevic; Anna Kirilova; Joanne L Moseley; Masoom A Haider; Kristy K Brock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Steven J Frank; V Elayne Arterbery; I-Chow Joe Hsu; May Abdel-Wahab; Jay P Ciezki; Noah M Hahn; James Lloyd Mohler; Brian J Moran; Seth A Rosenthal; Carl J Rossi; Yoshiya Yamada; Gregory Merrick Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Brian J Davis; Eric M Horwitz; W Robert Lee; Juanita M Crook; Richard G Stock; Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Peter D Grimm; Nelson N Stone; Louis Potters; Anthony L Zietman; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Hendrik Westendorp; Tonnis T Nuver; Carel J Hoekstra; Marinus A Moerland; André W Minken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 7.038