DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparison of preplan MRI and preplan CT-based prostate volume with intraoperative ultrasound-based prostate volume in real-time permanent brachytherapy

  • Park, Hye-Li (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Kim, Ja-Young (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Lee, Bo-Mi (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Chang, Sei-Kyung (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Ko, Seung-Young (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Jun (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Park, Dong-Soo (Department of Urology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University) ;
  • Shin, Hyun-Soo (Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University)
  • Received : 2011.05.25
  • Accepted : 2011.07.13
  • Published : 2011.09.30

Abstract

Purpose: The present study compared the difference between intraoperative transrectal ultrasound (iTRUS)-based prostate volume and preplan computed tomography (CT), preplan magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based prostate volume to estimate the number of seeds needed for appropriate dose coverage in permanent brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between March 2007 and March 2011, among 112 patients who underwent permanent brachytherapy with $^{125}I$, 60 image scans of 56 patients who underwent preplan CT (pCT) or preplan MRI (pMRI) within 2 months before brachytherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-four cases among 30 cases with pCT and 26 cases among 30 cases with pMRI received neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT). In 34 cases, NHT started after acquisition of preplan image. The median duration of NHT after preplan image acquisition was 17 and 21 days for cases with pCT and pMRI, respectively. The prostate volume calculated by different modalities was compared. And retrospective planning with iTRUS image was performed to estimate the number of $^{125}I$ seed required to obtain recommended dose distribution according to prostate volume. Results: The mean difference in prostate volume was 9.05 mL between the pCT and iTRUS and 6.84 mL between the pMRI and iTRUS. The prostate volume was roughly overestimated by 1.36 times with pCT and by 1.33 times with pMRI. For 34 cases which received NHT after image acquisition, the prostate volume was roughly overestimated by 1.45 times with pCT and by 1.37 times with pMRI. A statistically significant difference was found between preplan image-based volume and iTRUS-based volume (p<0.001). The median number of wasted seeds is approximately 13, when the pCT or pMRI volume was accepted without modification to assess the required number of seeds for brachytherapy. Conclusion: pCT-based volume and pMRI-based volume tended to overestimate prostate volume in comparison to iTRUS-based volume. To reduce wasted seeds and cost of the brachytherapy, we should take the volume discrepancy into account when we estimate the number of $^{125}I$ seeds for permanent brachytherapy.

Keywords

References

  1. Polo A, Salembier C, Venselaar J, Hoskin P; PROBATE group of the GEC ESTRO. Review of intraoperative imaging and planning techniques in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2010;94:12-23.
  2. Ishiyama H, Nakamura R, Satoh T, et al. Differences between intraoperative ultrasound-based dosimetry and postoperative computed tomography-based dosimetry for permanent interstitial prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2010;9:219-23.
  3. Hinnen KA, Battermann JJ, van Roermund JG, et al. Long-term biochemical and survival outcome of 921 patients treated with I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76:1433-8.
  4. Zelefsky MJ, Hollister T, Raben A, Matthews S, Wallner KE. Five-year biochemical outcome and toxicity with transperineal CT-planned permanent I-125 prostate implantation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:1261-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00550-2
  5. Stock RG, Cesaretti JA, Stone NN. Disease-specific survival following the brachytherapy management of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:810-6.
  6. Prestidge BR, Prete JJ, Buchholz TA, et al. A survey of current clinical practice of permanent prostate brachytherapy in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;40:461-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00715-3
  7. Williams BV, Horton J, Lawyer A, Chapman J. Loading technique comparison in permanent 125I prostate implants. Med Dosim 1999;24:273-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-3947(99)00023-0
  8. Messing EM, Zhang JB, Rubens DJ, et al. Intraoperative optimized inverse planning for prostate brachytherapy: early experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:801-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00088-7
  9. Fogh S, Doyle L, Yu A, et al. A comparison of preplan transrectal ultrasound with preplan-CT in assessing volume and number of seeds needed for real-time ultrasound-based intra-operative planning in prostate (125)I seed implantation. Brachytherapy 2010;9:335-40.
  10. Dubois DF, Prestidge BR, Hotchkiss LA, Prete JJ, Bice WS Jr. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiology 1998;207:785-9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.207.3.9609905
  11. Chauveinc L, Flam T, Solignac S, et al. Prostate cancer brachytherapy: is real-time ultrasound-based dosimetry predictive of subsequent CT-based dose distribution calculation? A study of 450 patients by the Institut Curie/Hospital Cochin (Paris) Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:691-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.12.003
  12. Salembier C, Lavagnini P, Nickers P, et al. Tumour and target volumes in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to the ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007;83:3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2007.01.014
  13. Tanaka O, Hayashi S, Matsuo M, et al. MRI-based preplanning in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008;88:115-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2007.09.012
  14. Smith WL, Lewis C, Bauman G, et al. Prostate volume contouring: a 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:1238-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027
  15. Roach M 3rd, Faillace-Akazawa P, Malfatti C, Holland J, Hricak H. Prostate volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomographic scans for threedimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;35:1011-8.
  16. Rasch C, Barillot I, Remeijer P, Touw A, van Herk M, Lebesque JV. Defi nition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43:57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00351-4
  17. Kagawa K, Lee WR, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA, Shaer AH, Hanks GE. 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;38:319-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00620-7
  18. Parker ML, Damyanovich A, Haycocks T, Haider M, Bayley A, Catton CN. Magnetic resonance imaging in the radiation treatment planning of localized prostate cancer using intraprostatic fiducial markers for computed tomography coregistration. Radiother Oncol 2003;66:217-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00407-3
  19. Prete JJ, Prestidge BR, Bice WS, Dubois DF, Hotchkiss LA. Comparison of MRI-and CT-based post-implant dosimetric analysis of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig 1998;6:90-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1998)6:2<90::AID-ROI4>3.0.CO;2-C
  20. Langenhuijsen JF, van Lin EN, Hoffmann AL, et al. Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate volume reduction: the optimal duration in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Urol Oncol 2011;29:52-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.03.024