CT- and MRI-based seed localization in postimplant evaluation after prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE To compare the uncertainties in CT- and MRI-based seed reconstruction in postimplant evaluation after prostate seed brachytherapy in terms of interobserver variability and quantify the impact of seed detection variability on a selection of dosimetric parameters for three postplan techniques: (1) CT, (2) MRI-T1 weighted fused with MRI-T2 weighted, and (3) CT fused with MRI-T2 weighted. METHODS AND MATERIALS Seven physicists reconstructed the seed positions on postimplant CT and MRI-T1 images of three patients. For each patient and imaging modality, the interobserver variability was calculated with respect to a reference seed set. The effect of this variability on dosimetry was calculated for CT and CT + MRI-T2 (CT-based seed reconstruction), as well as for MRI-T1 + MRI-T2 (MRI-T1-based seed reconstruction), using fixed CT and MRI-T2 prostate contours. RESULTS Averaged over three patients, the interobserver variability in CT-based seed reconstruction was 1.1 mm (1 SDref, i.e., standard deviation with respect to the reference value). The D90 (dose delivered to 90% of the target) variability was 1.5% and 1.3% (1 SDref) for CT and CT + MRI-T2, respectively. The mean interobserver variability in MRI-based seed reconstruction was 3.0 mm (1 SDref), and the impact of this variability on D90 was 6.6% for MRI-T1 + MRI-T2. CONCLUSIONS Seed reconstruction on MRI-T1-weighted images was less accurate than on CT. This difference in uncertainties should be weighted against uncertainties due to contouring and image fusion when comparing the overall reliability of postplan techniques.

[1]  Ivan Yeung,et al.  MRI-CT fusion to assess postbrachytherapy prostate volume and the effects of prolonged edema on dosimetry following transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 2004, Brachytherapy.

[2]  D. Gladstone,et al.  Prostate seed implant quality assessment using MR and CT image fusion. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  David Beyer,et al.  Interobserver variability leads to significant differences in quantifiers of prostate implant adequacy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  J. Battista,et al.  A systematic study of imaging uncertainties and their impact on 125I prostate brachytherapy dose evaluation. , 2003, Medical physics.

[5]  W. Lee.  Permanent prostate brachytherapy: the significance of postimplant dosimetry. , 2004, Reviews in urology.

[6]  J J W Lagendijk,et al.  Simulation of the artefact of an iodine seed placed at the needle tip in MRI-guided prostate brachytherapy. , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  J J Prete,et al.  Source localization following permanent transperineal prostate interstitial brachytherapy using magnetic resonance imaging. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  W S Bice,et al.  CT and MRI derived source localization error in a custom prostate phantom using automated image coregistration. , 2001, Medical physics.

[9]  K Wachowicz,et al.  Characterization of the susceptibility artifact around a prostate brachytherapy seed in MRI. , 2006, Medical physics.

[10]  Phantom investigations on CT seed imaging for interstitial brachytherapy. , 2007, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  R. Stock,et al.  A dose-response study for I-125 prostate implants. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  M. Ranney,et al.  Beyond the bedside: Clinicians as guardians of public health, medicine and science , 2020, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

[13]  P. Mangili,et al.  Comparative study of permanent interstitial prostate brachytherapy post-implant evaluation among seven Italian institutes. , 2004, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[14]  D. Ash,et al.  Impact of selection of post-implant technique on dosimetry parameters for permanent prostate implants. , 2005, Brachytherapy.

[15]  J J Prete,et al.  Comparison of MRI- and CT-based post-implant dosimetric analysis of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 1998, Radiation oncology investigations.

[16]  D H Brinkmann,et al.  Automated seed localization from CT datasets of the prostate. , 1998, Medical physics.

[17]  K. Wallner,et al.  Dosimetric parameters as predictive factors for biochemical control in patients with higher risk prostate cancer treated with Pd-103 and supplemental beam radiation. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  Christian Kirisits,et al.  Accuracy of seed reconstruction in prostate postplanning studied with a CT- and MRI-compatible phantom. , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[19]  Toshio Ohashi,et al.  Impact of MRI-based postimplant dosimetric assessment in prostate brachytherapy using contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. , 2010, Brachytherapy.

[20]  J. Crook,et al.  Implications of CT imaging for postplan quality assessment in prostate brachytherapy. , 2010, Brachytherapy.

[21]  Wayne M Butler,et al.  American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 2012, Brachytherapy.

[22]  J. Williamson,et al.  Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. , 2003, Medical physics.

[23]  C. Giberti,et al.  Dosimetry doesn't seem to predict the control of organ-confined prostate cancer after I-125 brachytherapy. Evaluation in 150 patients. , 2009, Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica.

[24]  Dan Ash,et al.  Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. , 2002, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[25]  L. Potters,et al.  A comprehensive review of CT-based dosimetry parameters and biochemical control in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[26]  Masayuki Matsuo,et al.  Comparison of MRI-based and CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetric analysis of prostate brachytherapy. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[27]  D Tubic,et al.  Automated seed detection and three-dimensional reconstruction. II. Reconstruction of permanent prostate implants using simulated annealing. , 2001, Medical physics.

[28]  Roberto Orecchia,et al.  MR and CT image fusion for postimplant analysis in permanent prostate seed implants. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[29]  Susumu Kanazawa,et al.  T2*-weighted image/T2-weighted image fusion in postimplant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy. , 2011, Journal of radiation research.

[30]  Alex Rijnders,et al.  Tumour and target volumes in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to the ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on prostate brachytherapy. , 2007, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[31]  Ivan Yeung,et al.  Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. , 2002, Brachytherapy.

[32]  Wayne M Butler,et al.  Evaluation of radiobiologic biochemical control in a large permanent prostate brachytherapy population from a single institution using AAPM TG-137 parameters. , 2011, Brachytherapy.

[33]  Karin Haustermans,et al.  Prostate post-implant dosimetry: interobserver variability in seed localisation, contouring and fusion. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[34]  P. Bownes,et al.  Comprehensive I-125 multi-seed comparison for prostate brachytherapy: dosimetry and visibility analysis. , 2007, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[35]  P L Roberson,et al.  Comparison of MRI pulse sequences in defining prostate volume after permanent implantation. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[36]  Patrick W McLaughlin,et al.  The use of mutual information in registration of CT and MRI datasets post permanent implant. , 2004, Brachytherapy.

[37]  D. Ash,et al.  ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. , 2000, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.