PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative accuracy and precision of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in the assessment of postimplantation prostate volume by determining intraobserver, interobserver, and intermodality variations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MR images of 41 consecutive patients, aftertransperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy, were evaluated by two physicians to determine interobserver and intermodality variability in prostate volume measurements. Repeat evaluation in five randomly selected patients was used to determine intraobserver variability. RESULTS: Observer 1 versus 2 CT-determined mean prostate volume difference was statistically significant (-8.5 cm3 +/- 9.74 [standard deviation], P < .001); observer 1 versus 2 MR-determined mean prostate volume difference was not significant (1.9 cm3 +/- 11.7, P = .492). CT intraobserver range of dimensional errors was 3.5 and 11.4 times that of MR imaging. Observer 1 CT and MR volumes were significantly different (P = .001); observer 2 CT and MR volumes were not significantly different (P = .079). CONCLUSION: With both CT and MR imaging, variation is less when evaluations are conducted by one observer. Variation in one observer may be further reduced by using MR imaging in place of CT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative accuracy and precision of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in the assessment of postimplantation prostate volume by determining intraobserver, interobserver, and intermodality variations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MR images of 41 consecutive patients, after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy, were evaluated by two physicians to determine interobserver and intermodality variability in prostate volume measurements. Repeat evaluation in five randomly selected patients was used to determine intraobserver variability. RESULTS: Observer 1 versus 2 CT-determined mean prostate volume difference was statistically significant (-8.5 cm3 +/- 9.74 [standard deviation], P < .001); observer 1 versus 2 MR-determined mean prostate volume difference was not significant (1.9 cm3 +/- 11.7, P = .492). CT intraobserver range of dimensional errors was 3.5 and 11.4 times that of MR imaging. Observer 1 CT and MR volumes were significantly different (P = .001); observer 2 CT and MR volumes were not significantly different (P = .079). CONCLUSION: With both CT and MR imaging, variation is less when evaluations are conducted by one observer. Variation in one observer may be further reduced by using MR imaging in place of CT.
Authors: Julie C Bulman; Robert Toth; Amish D Patel; B Nicolas Bloch; Colm J McMahon; Long Ngo; Anant Madabhushi; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Xiaofeng Yang; Peter Rossi; Tomi Ogunleye; David M Marcus; Ashesh B Jani; Hui Mao; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Geoffrey V Martin; Thomas J Pugh; Usama Mahmood; Rajat J Kudchadker; Jihong Wang; Teresa L Bruno; Tharakeswara Bathala; Pierre Blanchard; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: David R Holmes; Brian J Davis; Christopher C Goulet; Torrence M Wilson; Lance A Mynderse; Keith M Furutani; Jon J Camp; Richard A Robb Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 2.362