PURPOSE: Both ultrasound (US) and computerized tomography (CT) images have been used in the planning of prostate interstitial therapy. Ultrasound images more clearly define the apex and capsule of the prostate, while CT images define seed positions for postimplant dosimetry. Proper registration of the US volume with the CT volume is critical to the assessment of dosimetry. We therefore compared US and CT prostate volumes to determine if differences were significant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten consecutive patients entered in an interstitial implant program were studied by pretreatment US. In addition, pretreatment CT scans were obtained and three physicians independently outlined the dimensions of the prostate on these images. The patients subsequently underwent placement of radioactive 125I or 103Pd. Postimplant CT images were obtained the next day and the postimplant prostate volumes were outlined by the same three physicians. Seven of 10 patients underwent late CT scans 9-14 months postimplant for comparison of preimplant and immediate postimplant CT studies. RESULTS: There were differences between US and CT volumes. Although the physician-to-physician variation was significant, the trends were consistent, with US prostate volume typically smaller (47%) than the preimplant CT volume and markedly smaller (120%) than the postimplant CT volume. Prostate volumes derived from late CT images did not consistently return to preimplant levels. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in volume of the prostate structure were found between US and CT images. The data suggests that: (a) Implants planned on CT tend to overestimate the size of the prostate and may lead to unnecessary implantation of the urogenital diaphragm and penile urethra. (b) Registration of initial US and postimplant CT prostate volumes required for accurate dosimetry is difficult due to the increased volume of prostate secondary to trauma. (c) Further study to determine the optimal time for the postimplant CT is necessary.
PURPOSE: Both ultrasound (US) and computerized tomography (CT) images have been used in the planning of prostate interstitial therapy. Ultrasound images more clearly define the apex and capsule of the prostate, while CT images define seed positions for postimplant dosimetry. Proper registration of the US volume with the CT volume is critical to the assessment of dosimetry. We therefore compared US and CT prostate volumes to determine if differences were significant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten consecutive patients entered in an interstitial implant program were studied by pretreatment US. In addition, pretreatment CT scans were obtained and three physicians independently outlined the dimensions of the prostate on these images. The patients subsequently underwent placement of radioactive 125I or 103Pd. Postimplant CT images were obtained the next day and the postimplant prostate volumes were outlined by the same three physicians. Seven of 10 patients underwent late CT scans 9-14 months postimplant for comparison of preimplant and immediate postimplant CT studies. RESULTS: There were differences between US and CT volumes. Although the physician-to-physician variation was significant, the trends were consistent, with US prostate volume typically smaller (47%) than the preimplant CT volume and markedly smaller (120%) than the postimplant CT volume. Prostate volumes derived from late CT images did not consistently return to preimplant levels. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in volume of the prostate structure were found between US and CT images. The data suggests that: (a) Implants planned on CT tend to overestimate the size of the prostate and may lead to unnecessary implantation of the urogenital diaphragm and penile urethra. (b) Registration of initial US and postimplant CT prostate volumes required for accurate dosimetry is difficult due to the increased volume of prostate secondary to trauma. (c) Further study to determine the optimal time for the postimplant CT is necessary.
Authors: Jun Lian; Yeqin Shao; Larry D Potter; Ronald C Chen; Jordan A Holmes; Eleanor A Pryser; Jie Shen; Dinggang Shen; Andrew Z Wang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Eric Berthelet; Pauline T Truong; Sergei Zavgorodni; Veronika Moravan; Mitchell C Liu; Jim Runkel; Bill Bendorffe; Dorothy Sayers Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2006-09-19 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: E Berthelet; M Liu; P Truong; P Czaykowski; N Kalach; C Yu; K Patterson; T Currie; S Kristensen; W Kwan; V Moravan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.102