Tharakeswara K Bathala1, Aradhana M Venkatesan2, Jingfei Ma3, Priyadarshini Bhosale2, Wei Wei4, Rajat J Kudchadker5, Jihong Wang5, Mitchell S Anscher6, Chad Tang6, Teresa L Bruno6, Steven J Frank6, Janio Szklaruk2. 1. Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: tkbathala@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 3. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Cancer Biostatistics Section, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 5. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare an isotropic three-dimensional (3D) T2-weighted sequence sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using flip angle evolution (SPACE) with an axial two-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin echo (TSE) sequence with regard to overall image quality and the delineation of normal prostate and periprostatic anatomy for low-dose-rate prostate cancer brachytherapy planning evaluation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients (n = 69) with prostate cancer who had pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for low-dose-rate brachytherapy treatment planning were included. Three radiologists independently assessed the visibility of nine anatomic structures on each sequence by using a 5-point scale and overall image quality by using a 4-point scale. The significance of the differences in diagnostic performance was tested with a Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: No significant intersequence differences were found for most (7/9) anatomical structures and overall image quality. The mean scores for visibility of anatomical structures on the 3D SPACE and 2D TSE sequences, respectively, were as follows: the zonal anatomy (3.7; 3.9, p = 0.05), prostate capsule (3.9; 4.0, p = 0.08), neurovascular bundle (2.9; 2.9, p = 0.9), rectoprostatic angle (3.8; 3.8, p = 0.35), rectum (4.2; 4.3, p = 0.26), urethra (3.8; 3.9, p = 0.12), urinary bladder (4.6; 4.6, p = 0.61), and overall image quality (2.9; 2.9, p = 0.33). 3D SPACE was superior for delineation of the genitourinary diaphragm (3.8; 3.6, p = 0.003), whereas 2D TSE was superior for delineation of the seminal vesicles (3.5; 4.0, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic delineation of the prostatic and periprostatic anatomy provided by the 3D SPACE sequence is as robust in quality as that provided by a conventional 2D TSE sequence with superior delineation of the genitourinary diaphragm. For MRI-based brachytherapy treatment planning, the 3D SPACE sequence with subcentimeter isotropic resolution can replace the 2D TSE sequence and be incorporated into standard MRI protocols. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare an isotropic three-dimensional (3D) T2-weighted sequence sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using flip angle evolution (SPACE) with an axial two-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin echo (TSE) sequence with regard to overall image quality and the delineation of normal prostate and periprostatic anatomy for low-dose-rate prostate cancer brachytherapy planning evaluation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients (n = 69) with prostate cancer who had pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for low-dose-rate brachytherapy treatment planning were included. Three radiologists independently assessed the visibility of nine anatomic structures on each sequence by using a 5-point scale and overall image quality by using a 4-point scale. The significance of the differences in diagnostic performance was tested with a Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: No significant intersequence differences were found for most (7/9) anatomical structures and overall image quality. The mean scores for visibility of anatomical structures on the 3D SPACE and 2D TSE sequences, respectively, were as follows: the zonal anatomy (3.7; 3.9, p = 0.05), prostate capsule (3.9; 4.0, p = 0.08), neurovascular bundle (2.9; 2.9, p = 0.9), rectoprostatic angle (3.8; 3.8, p = 0.35), rectum (4.2; 4.3, p = 0.26), urethra (3.8; 3.9, p = 0.12), urinary bladder (4.6; 4.6, p = 0.61), and overall image quality (2.9; 2.9, p = 0.33). 3D SPACE was superior for delineation of the genitourinary diaphragm (3.8; 3.6, p = 0.003), whereas 2D TSE was superior for delineation of the seminal vesicles (3.5; 4.0, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic delineation of the prostatic and periprostatic anatomy provided by the 3D SPACE sequence is as robust in quality as that provided by a conventional 2D TSE sequence with superior delineation of the genitourinary diaphragm. For MRI-based brachytherapy treatment planning, the 3D SPACE sequence with subcentimeter isotropic resolution can replace the 2D TSE sequence and be incorporated into standard MRI protocols. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
2D TSE sequence; 3D SPACE sequence; Low-dose-rate brachytherapy; Prostate brachytherapy; Prostate magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Jacob Sosna; Ivan Pedrosa; William C Dewolf; Houman Mahallati; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Nicole Proscia; Tracy A Jaffe; Amy M Neville; Carolyn L Wang; Brian M Dale; Elmar M Merkle Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Patrick W McLaughlin; Sara Troyer; Sally Berri; Vrinda Narayana; Amichay Meirowitz; Peter L Roberson; James Montie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jingfei Ma; Marinus A Moerland; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Rajat J Kudchadker; Kristy K Brock; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Susan M Noworolski; Mukesh Harisinghani; Kartik S Jhaveri; Steve S Raman; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Zhen J Wang; Ronald J Zagoria; John Kurhanewicz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.959
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
Authors: Jeremiah W Sanders; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Chad A Levitt; Tharakeswara Bathala; Rajat J Kudchadker; Chad Tang; Teresa L Bruno; Christine Starks; Edwin Santiago; Michelle Wells; Carl P Weaver; Jingfei Ma; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038