Literature DB >> 9989514

Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study.

C Rasch1, I Barillot, P Remeijer, A Touw, M van Herk, J V Lebesque.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine, in three-dimensions, the difference between prostate delineation in magnetic resonance (MR) and computer tomography (CT) images for radiotherapy treatment planning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three radiation oncologists, considered experts in the field, outlined the prostate without seminal vesicles both on CT, and axial, coronal, and sagittal MR images for 18 patients. To compare the resulting delineated prostates, the CT and MR scans were matched in three-dimensions using chamfer matching on bony structures. The volumes were measured and the interscan and interobserver variation was determined. The spatial difference between delineation in CT and MR (interscan variation) as well as the interobserver variation were quantified and mapped three-dimensionally (3D) using polar coordinates. A urethrogram was performed and the location of the tip of the dye column was compared with the apex delineated in CT and MR images.
RESULTS: Interscan variation: CT volumes were larger than the axial MR volumes in 52 of 54 delineations. The average ratio between the CT and MR volumes was 1.4 (standard error of mean, SE: 0.04) which was significantly different from 1 (p < 0.005). Only small differences were observed between the volumes outlined in the various MR scans, although the coronal MR volumes were smallest. The CT derived prostate was 8 mm (standard deviation, SD: 6 mm) larger at the base of the seminal vesicles and 6 mm (SD 4 mm) larger at the apex of the prostate than the axial MRI. Similar figures were obtained for the CT and the other MRI scans. Interobserver variation: The average ratio between the volume derived by one observer for a particular scan and patient and the average volume was 0.95, 0.97, and 1.08 (SE 0.01) for the three observers, respectively. The 3D pattern of the overall observer variation (1 SD) for CT and axial MRI was similar and equal to 3.5 to 2.8 mm at the base of the seminal vesicles and 3 mm at the apex.
CONCLUSION: CT-derived prostate volumes are larger than MR derived volumes, especially toward the seminal vesicles and the apex of the prostate. This interscan variation was found to be larger than the interobserver variation. Using MRI for delineation of the prostate reduces the amount of irradiated rectal wall, and could reduce rectal and urological complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9989514     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00351-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  118 in total

1.  Critical discussion of evaluation parameters for inter-observer variability in target definition for radiation therapy.

Authors:  I Fotina; C Lütgendorf-Caucig; M Stock; R Pötter; D Georg
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Concurrent segmentation of the prostate on MRI and CT via linked statistical shape models for radiotherapy planning.

Authors:  Najeeb Chowdhury; Robert Toth; Jonathan Chappelow; Sung Kim; Sabin Motwani; Salman Punekar; Haibo Lin; Stefan Both; Neha Vapiwala; Stephen Hahn; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Human-computer interaction in radiotherapy target volume delineation: a prospective, multi-institutional comparison of user input devices.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  CT-based postimplant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy: comparison of 1-mm and 5-mm section CT.

Authors:  Osamu Tanaka; Shinya Hayashi; Masayuki Kanematsu; Masayuki Matsuo; Masahiro Nakano; Sunaho Maeda; Takashi Deguchi; Hiroaki Hoshi
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2007-01-25

Review 5.  Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Kirkham; Manit Arya; Rowland Illing; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  Results of a dummy run of postimplant dosimetry between multi-institutional centers in prostate brachytherapy with 125I seeds.

Authors:  Manabu Aoki; Atsunori Yorozu; Takushi Dokiya
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-25       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance imaging in precision radiation therapy for lung cancer.

Authors:  Hannah Bainbridge; Ahmed Salem; Rob H N Tijssen; Michael Dubec; Andreas Wetscherek; Corinne Van Es; Jose Belderbos; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Fiona McDonald
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2017-12

Review 8.  MRI-only treatment planning: benefits and challenges.

Authors:  Amir M Owrangi; Peter B Greer; Carri K Glide-Hurst
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Quantitative assessment of target delineation variability for thymic cancers: Agreement evaluation of a prospective segmentation challenge.

Authors:  Emma Holliday; Clifton D Fuller; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Daniel Gomez; Andreas Rimner; Ying Li; Suresh Senan; Lynn D Wilson; Jehee Choi; Ritsuko Komaki; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  J Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-11-03

10.  Short-term high precision radiotherapy for early prostate cancer with concomitant boost to the dominant lesion: ad interim analysis and preliminary results of Phase II trial AIRC-IG-13218.

Authors:  Giorgia Timon; Delia Ciardo; Alessia Bazani; Giulia Marvaso; Giulia Riva; Stefania Volpe; Damaris P Rojas; Giuseppe Renne; Giuseppe Petralia; Dario Zerini; Cristiana Fodor; Samantha Dicuonzo; Davide Maestri; Floriana Pansini; Raffaella Cambria; Federica Cattani; Federica Golino; Valerio Scroffi; Daniela De Lorenzo; Ottavio De Cobelli; Roberto Orecchia; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.