Comparability of CT-based and TRUS-based prostate volumes.

PURPOSE To compare the prostate volumes defined by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) versus computed tomographic (CT) scans used for brachytherapy planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten unselected patients underwent evaluation for prostate brachytherapy with TRUS and CT imaging. Axial prostate contours were obtained at 5-mm intervals in both studies. The CT images were photographed, scanned into a commercial software program, and reprinted from a laser printer at 600 dots per inch to provide individual images that were interpreted independently by the three physician authors (BK, KW, and JB). An effort was made to exclude pelvic floor muscles from the defined prostate contour. Volumes were calculated in cubic centimeters. The prostate volume and maximum dimension in each plane were compared for each imaging modality. RESULTS The CT-based prostate volumes ranged from 31.1 cc to 48.1 cc. The TRUS-based volumes ranged from 26.6 cc to 46.4 cc. There was close agreement between imaging modalities (r = 0.9). The anterior-posterior, lateral, and craniocaudal prostatic dimensions were similar between modalities. To test for consistency between observers, the CT volumes were drawn independently by KB, KW, and JB. The prostatic measurements were consistent in all dimensions between observers. CONCLUSION CT scan volumes and measurements correlate well with those obtained by TRUS, and are appropriate for pre- or postimplant dosimetry.

[1]  J Roy,et al.  Tumor control and morbidity following transperineal iodine 125 implantation for stage T1/T2 prostatic carcinoma. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

[4]  R. Jeffrey,et al.  Evaluation of prostate size: A comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging , 1988, Urologic radiology.

[5]  C C Ling,et al.  A CT-based evaluation method for permanent implants: application to prostate. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  H. Hricak,et al.  Prostate volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  W Cavanagh,et al.  Use of pelvic CT scanning to evaluate pubic arch interference of transperineal prostate brachytherapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  K. Wallner,et al.  CT-based dosimetry for transperineal I-125 prostate brachytherapy. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[10]  J. Roy,et al.  Dosimetry guidelines to minimize urethral and rectal morbidity following transperineal I-125 prostate brachytherapy. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  G E Hanks,et al.  Initial clinical assessment of CT-MRI image fusion software in localization of the prostate for 3D conformal radiation therapy. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  B W Corn,et al.  Effect of edema on the post-implant dosimetry of an I-125 prostate implant: a case study. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.