Geoffrey V Martin1, Thomas J Pugh2, Usama Mahmood1, Rajat J Kudchadker3, Jihong Wang3, Teresa L Bruno1, Tharakeswara Bathala4, Pierre Blanchard1, Steven J Frank5. 1. 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. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: sjfrank@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry using computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) fusion combines the anatomic detail of MRI with seed localization on CT but requires multimodality imaging acquisition and fusion. The purpose of this study was to compare the utility of MRI only postimplant dosimetry to standard CT-MRI fusion-based dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-three patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy with use of positive contrast MRI markers were included in this study. Dose calculation to the whole prostate, apex, mid-gland, and base was performed via standard CT-MRI fusion and MRI only dosimetry with prostate delineated on the same T2 MRI sequence. The 3-dimensional (3D) distances between seed positions of these two methods were also evaluated. Wilcoxon-matched-pair signed-rank test compared the D90 and V100 of the prostate and its sectors between methods. RESULTS: The day 0 D90 and V100 for the prostate were 98% versus 94% and 88% versus 86% for CT-MRI fusion and MRI only dosimetry. There were no differences in the D90 or V100 of the whole prostate, mid-gland, or base between dosimetric methods (p > 0.19), but prostate apex D90 was high by 13% with MRI dosimetry (p = 0.034). The average distance between seeds on CT-MRI fusion and MRI alone was 5.5 mm. After additional automated rigid registration of 3D seed positions, the average distance between seeds was 0.3 mm, and the previously observed differences in apex dose between methods was eliminated (p > 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry based only on MRI using positive contrast MRI markers is feasible, accurate, and reduces the uncertainties arising from CT-MRI fusion abating the need for postimplant multimodality imaging.
PURPOSE: Permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry using computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) fusion combines the anatomic detail of MRI with seed localization on CT but requires multimodality imaging acquisition and fusion. The purpose of this study was to compare the utility of MRI only postimplant dosimetry to standard CT-MRI fusion-based dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-three patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy with use of positive contrast MRI markers were included in this study. Dose calculation to the whole prostate, apex, mid-gland, and base was performed via standard CT-MRI fusion and MRI only dosimetry with prostate delineated on the same T2 MRI sequence. The 3-dimensional (3D) distances between seed positions of these two methods were also evaluated. Wilcoxon-matched-pair signed-rank test compared the D90 and V100 of the prostate and its sectors between methods. RESULTS: The day 0 D90 and V100 for the prostate were 98% versus 94% and 88% versus 86% for CT-MRI fusion and MRI only dosimetry. There were no differences in the D90 or V100 of the whole prostate, mid-gland, or base between dosimetric methods (p > 0.19), but prostate apex D90 was high by 13% with MRI dosimetry (p = 0.034). The average distance between seeds on CT-MRI fusion and MRI alone was 5.5 mm. After additional automated rigid registration of 3D seed positions, the average distance between seeds was 0.3 mm, and the previously observed differences in apex dose between methods was eliminated (p > 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry based only on MRI using positive contrast MRI markers is feasible, accurate, and reduces the uncertainties arising from CT-MRI fusion abating the need for postimplant multimodality imaging.
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: Geert M Villeirs; Koen Van Vaerenbergh; Luc Vakaet; Samuel Bral; Filip Claus; Wilfried J De Neve; Koenraad L Verstraete; Gert O De Meerleer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Peter Orio; Kent Wallner; Gregory Merrick; Andrew Herstein; Paul Mitsuyama; Ken Thornton; Wayne Butler; Steven Sutlief Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tze Yee Lim; R Jason Stafford; Rajat J Kudchadker; Madhuri Sankaranarayanapillai; Geoffrey Ibbott; Arvind Rao; Karen S Martirosyan; Steven J Frank Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Steven J Frank; R Jason Stafford; James A Bankson; Chun Li; David A Swanson; Rajat J Kudchadker; Karen S Martirosyan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marisol De Brabandere; Peter Hoskin; Karin Haustermans; Frank Van den Heuvel; Frank-André Siebert Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 6.280