Comparison of CT and MR-CT fusion for prostate post-implant dosimetry.

PURPOSE The use of T2 MR for postimplant dosimetry (PID) after prostate brachytherapy allows more anatomically accurate and precise contouring but does not readily permit seed identification. We developed a reproducible technique for performing MR-CT fusion and compared the resulting dosimetry to standard CT-based PID. METHODS AND MATERIALS CT and T1-weighted MR images for 45 patients were fused and aligned based on seed distribution. The T2-weighted MR image was then fused to the aligned T1. Reproducibility of the fusion technique was tested by inter- and intraobserver variability for 13 patients. Dosimetry was computed for the prostate as a whole and for the prostate divided into anterior and posterior sectors of the base, mid-prostate, and apex. RESULTS Inter- and intraobserver variability for the fusion technique showed less than 1% variation in D90. MR-CT fusion D90 and CT D90 were nearly equivalent for the whole prostate, but differed depending on the identification of superior extent of the base (p = 0.007) and on MR/CT prostate volume ratio (p = 0.03). Sector analysis showed a decrease in MR-CT fusion D90 in the anterior base (ratio 0.93 ±0.25, p < 0.05) and an increase in MR-CT fusion D90 in the apex (p < 0.05). The volume of extraprostatic tissue encompassed by the V100 is greater on MR than CT. Factors associated with this difference are the MR/CT volume ratio (p < 0.001) and the difference in identification of the inferior extent of the apex (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS We developed a reproducible MR-CT fusion technique that allows MR-based dosimetry. Comparing the resulting postimplant dosimetry with standard CT dosimetry shows several differences, including adequacy of coverage of the base and conformity of the dosimetry around the apex. Given the advantage of MR-based tissue definition, further study of MR-based dosimetry is warranted.

[1]  C M Tempany,et al.  Accuracy of In‐Vivo Assessment of Prostatic Volume by MRI and Transrectal Ultrasonography , 1992, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[2]  J. Williamson,et al.  In regard to Beyer, Nath, and Butler et al. IJROBP 2000;47:273-275. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  P. Grimm,et al.  American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[5]  W. Butler,et al.  Potential role of various dosimetric quality indicators in prostate brachytherapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  S Nag,et al.  The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetric analysis. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  Changes in prostate shape and volume and their implications for radiotherapy after introduction of endorectal balloon as determined by MRI at 3T. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  L. Potters,et al.  Permanent prostate brachytherapy in men with clinically localised prostate cancer. , 2003, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[9]  Kate McLeish,et al.  Comparison of combined x-ray radiography and magnetic resonance (XMR) imaging-versus computed tomography-based dosimetry for the evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy implants. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  Wendy L. Smith,et al.  Prostate volume contouring: a 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Prostate postbrachytherapy seed distribution: comparison of high-resolution, contrast-enhanced, T1- and T2-weighted endorectal magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography: initial experience. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  C. Catton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: comparison to computed tomography (CT) and urethrography. , 1998, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  125 Gy or 135 Gy? Comments on the American Brachytherapy Society article by Beyer et al. IJROBP 2000;47:273-275. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  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.

[15]  S. Cowper Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy: the first 6 years , 2003, Current opinion in rheumatology.

[16]  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.

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

[18]  M A Moerland,et al.  Evaluation of permanent I-125 prostate implants using radiography and magnetic resonance imaging. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  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.

[20]  J J Prete,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 1998, Radiology.

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

[22]  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.