Cargando…

Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Background: Magnetic resonance (MR)-fusion contouring is the standard of care in prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for target volume localisation. However, the planning computerised tomography (CT) scan continues to be used for dose calculation and treatment planning and verification. D...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Henderson, Daniel R., Tree, Alison C., Harrington, Kevin J., van As, Nicholas J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621134
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicines5020032
_version_ 1783335843875782656
author Henderson, Daniel R.
Tree, Alison C.
Harrington, Kevin J.
van As, Nicholas J.
author_facet Henderson, Daniel R.
Tree, Alison C.
Harrington, Kevin J.
van As, Nicholas J.
author_sort Henderson, Daniel R.
collection PubMed
description Background: Magnetic resonance (MR)-fusion contouring is the standard of care in prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for target volume localisation. However, the planning computerised tomography (CT) scan continues to be used for dose calculation and treatment planning and verification. Discrepancies between the planning MR and CT scans may negate the benefits of MR-fusion contouring and it adds a significant resource burden. We aimed to determine whether CT-only contouring resulted in a dosimetric detriment compared with MR-fusion contouring in prostate SBRT planning. Methods: We retrospectively compared target volumes and SBRT plans for 20 patients treated clinically with MR-fusion contouring (standard of care) with those produced by re-contouring using CT data only. Dose was 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. CT-only contouring was done on two occasions blind to MR data and reviewed by a separate observer. Primary outcome was the difference in rectal volume receiving 36 Gy or above. Results: Absolute target volumes were similar: 63.5 cc (SD ± 27.9) versus 63.2 (SD ± 26.5), Dice coefficient 0.86 (SD ± 0.04). Mean difference in apex superior-inferior position was 1.1 (SD ± 3.5; CI: −0.4–2.6). Small dosimetric differences in favour of CT-only contours were seen, with the mean rectal V36 Gy 0.3 cc (95% CI: 0.1–0.5) lower for CT-only contouring. Conclusions: Prostate SBRT can be successfully planned without MR-fusion contouring. Consideration can be given to omitting MR-fusion from the prostate SBRT workflow, provided reference to diagnostic MR imaging is available. Development of MR-only work flow is a key research priority to gain access to the anatomical fidelity of MR imaging.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6023312
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60233122018-07-05 Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Henderson, Daniel R. Tree, Alison C. Harrington, Kevin J. van As, Nicholas J. Medicines (Basel) Article Background: Magnetic resonance (MR)-fusion contouring is the standard of care in prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for target volume localisation. However, the planning computerised tomography (CT) scan continues to be used for dose calculation and treatment planning and verification. Discrepancies between the planning MR and CT scans may negate the benefits of MR-fusion contouring and it adds a significant resource burden. We aimed to determine whether CT-only contouring resulted in a dosimetric detriment compared with MR-fusion contouring in prostate SBRT planning. Methods: We retrospectively compared target volumes and SBRT plans for 20 patients treated clinically with MR-fusion contouring (standard of care) with those produced by re-contouring using CT data only. Dose was 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. CT-only contouring was done on two occasions blind to MR data and reviewed by a separate observer. Primary outcome was the difference in rectal volume receiving 36 Gy or above. Results: Absolute target volumes were similar: 63.5 cc (SD ± 27.9) versus 63.2 (SD ± 26.5), Dice coefficient 0.86 (SD ± 0.04). Mean difference in apex superior-inferior position was 1.1 (SD ± 3.5; CI: −0.4–2.6). Small dosimetric differences in favour of CT-only contours were seen, with the mean rectal V36 Gy 0.3 cc (95% CI: 0.1–0.5) lower for CT-only contouring. Conclusions: Prostate SBRT can be successfully planned without MR-fusion contouring. Consideration can be given to omitting MR-fusion from the prostate SBRT workflow, provided reference to diagnostic MR imaging is available. Development of MR-only work flow is a key research priority to gain access to the anatomical fidelity of MR imaging. MDPI 2018-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6023312/ /pubmed/29621134 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicines5020032 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Henderson, Daniel R.
Tree, Alison C.
Harrington, Kevin J.
van As, Nicholas J.
Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
title Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
title_full Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
title_fullStr Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
title_short Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
title_sort dosimetric implications of computerised tomography-only versus magnetic resonance-fusion contouring in stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621134
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicines5020032
work_keys_str_mv AT hendersondanielr dosimetricimplicationsofcomputerisedtomographyonlyversusmagneticresonancefusioncontouringinstereotacticbodyradiotherapyforprostatecancer
AT treealisonc dosimetricimplicationsofcomputerisedtomographyonlyversusmagneticresonancefusioncontouringinstereotacticbodyradiotherapyforprostatecancer
AT harringtonkevinj dosimetricimplicationsofcomputerisedtomographyonlyversusmagneticresonancefusioncontouringinstereotacticbodyradiotherapyforprostatecancer
AT vanasnicholasj dosimetricimplicationsofcomputerisedtomographyonlyversusmagneticresonancefusioncontouringinstereotacticbodyradiotherapyforprostatecancer