Abstract
Purpose
To determine the reproducibility and precision of postimplant dosimetry following 125I prostate brachytherapy (PB) and to evaluate the effects of learning and experience in CT-based postimplant dosimetry.
Materials and methods
One-month postimplant CT data from two patients who underwent PB alone or combined therapy (PB + EBRT) were sent to 28 institutions for postimplant dosimetry and analyzed in 2006 (study 1). Similarly, 1-month postimplant CT data from two other patients were also analyzed in 2008 (study 2; 23 institutions). For both modalities in studies 1 and 2, the variance of the difference between CT-based D90 at each institution and CT/MRI fusion-based D90 was estimated.
Results
In monotherapy, F test and Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference in the variance in studies 1 and 2 (P = 0.72, 0.46). In combined therapy, the variance significantly converged in study 2 compared with study 1 (P < 0.05). Even in the two studies, however, the difference between the median CT-based D90 and fusion-based D90 was at least 20–30 Gy.
Conclusion
Marked interobserver variability was seen in the prostate volume and D90 with CT alone. The precision of postimplant dosimetry based on CT alone was revealed to be limited.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Narayana V, Roberson P, Pu T, Sandler H, Winfield R, McLaughlin P. Impact of differences in ultrasound and CT volumes on treatment planning of permanent prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;37:1181–1185.
McLaughlin P, Troyer S, Berri S, Narayana V, Meirowitz A, Roberson P, et al. Functional anatomy of the prostate: implications for treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:479–491.
Roach M, Faillace-Akazawa P, Malfatti C, Holland J, Hricak H. Prostate volume defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;35:1011–1018.
Crook J, Milosevic M, Catton P, Yeung I, Haycocks T, Tran T, et al. Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2002;1:66–73.
Han B, Wallner K, Merrick G. The effect of inter-observer differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters. Med Phys 2003;30:1096–1104.
Kagawa K, Lee W, Schultheiss T, Hunt M, Shaer A, Hnaks G. Initial clinical assessment of CT-MRI image fusion software in localization of the prostate for 3D conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38:319–325.
Rasch C, Barillot I, Remeijer P, Touw A, van Herk M, Lebesque J. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multiobserver study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43:57–66.
Merrick G, Butler W, Dorsey A, Lief J. The dependence of prostate postimplant dosimetric quality on CT volume determination. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:1111–1117.
Dubois DF, Prestidge BR, Hotchkiss LA, Prete J, Bice W. Intraobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiology 1998;207:785–789.
Moerland M, Wijrdeman H, Beersma R, Bakker C, Battermann J. Evaluation of permanent I-125 prostate implants using radiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;37:927–933.
Prete J, Prestidge B, Bice W, Dubois D. Comparison of MRIand T-based post implant dosimetric analysis of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Invest 1998;6:90–96.
Polo A, Cattani F, Vavassori A, Origgi D, Villa G, Marsiglia H, et al. MR and image fusion for postimplant analysis in permanent prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:1572–1579.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Aoki, M., Yorozu, A. & Dokiya, T. Results of a dummy run of postimplant dosimetry between multi-institutional centers in prostate brachytherapy with 125I seeds. Jpn J Radiol 27, 410–415 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-009-0361-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-009-0361-0