The effect of interobserver differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters.

The purpose of this study was to clarify where observers differ in their interpretation of CT scans, and to relate those differences to clinically relevant dosimetric parameters. Twenty unselected patients treated with I-125 or Pd-103 brachytherapy at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) in 2001 were studied. Patients were implanted with I-125 (7 patients, 0.87 mCi/source) or Pd-103 (13 patients, 2.54 U/source). The number of I-125 sources implanted ranged from 52 to 78. The number of Pd-103 sources implanted ranged from 58-144. Post-implant 3 mm CT images were imported into a laptop running Varian Variseed and sent to the four physician investigators, who outlined the prostate independently. Investigators were not coached specifically for this study, beyond their having read prior reports regarding prostate volume determinations. There was moderate interobserver variability in CT volume determination, with the standard deviations as a percent of the mean ranging from 9% to 29% (median: 17%). An average of 14% of implants (range: 5%-20%) would have been judged inadequate based on a minimum V100 of 80%, versus 24% of implants (range: 5%-45%) being judged inadequate based on a minimum D90 of 90% of prescription dose. The greatest variability was seen in prostate length (median standard deviation: 0.57 cm), due to vagaries in base and apical localization. However, the prostatic width and thickness also varied substantially between observers, with median standard deviations of 0.24 and 0.32 cm, respectively. Treatment margin variability was greatest at the anterior border, with a median standard deviation of 0.21 cm +/- 0.10. We believe that CT-based dosimetry, while influenced by CT interpretation, still provides useful general dosimetric calculations, that are likely to be reproducible enough to provide clinically useful information between institutions. The V100 and TMs are less influenced by interobserver CT interpretation variability than is the D90, and may be better suited as interinstitutional quality indices.

[1]  Nelson N. Stone,et al.  Postimplant dosimetry for (125)I prostate implants: definitions and factors affecting outcome. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  K. Wallner,et al.  Modification of prostate implants based on postimplant treatment margin assessment. , 2002, Medical physics.

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

[4]  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.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  D W Hillman,et al.  The radial distance of extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma , 1999, Cancer.

[8]  J J Prete,et al.  Centralized multiinstitutional postimplant analysis for interstitial prostate brachytherapy. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  A. Dicker,et al.  Isotope selection for permanent prostate implants? An evaluation of 103Pd versus 125I based on radiobiological effectiveness and dosimetry. , 2000, Seminars in urologic oncology.

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

[11]  Arjan Bel,et al.  Definition of gross tumor volume in lung cancer: inter-observer variability. , 2002, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[12]  H. Levin,et al.  Extent of extracapsular extension in localized prostate cancer. , 2000, Urology.

[13]  P L Roberson,et al.  Impact of ultrasound and computed tomography prostate volume registration on evaluation of permanent prostate implants. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  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.

[15]  W Cavanagh,et al.  Comparability of CT-based and TRUS-based prostate volumes. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  W. Butler,et al.  The dependence of prostate postimplant dosimetric quality on CT volume determination. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.