Cargando…

Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation

PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound images are routinely acquired for low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy dosimetric preplanning (pTRUS), although diagnostic multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may serve this purpose as well. We compared the predictive abilities of TRUS vs MRI rela...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fredman, Elisha T., Traughber, Bryan J., Gross, Andrew, Podder, Tarun, Colussi, Valdir, Vinkler, Robert, Machtay, Mitchell, Ellis, Rodney J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6560234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31004396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12592
_version_ 1783425930973151232
author Fredman, Elisha T.
Traughber, Bryan J.
Gross, Andrew
Podder, Tarun
Colussi, Valdir
Vinkler, Robert
Machtay, Mitchell
Ellis, Rodney J.
author_facet Fredman, Elisha T.
Traughber, Bryan J.
Gross, Andrew
Podder, Tarun
Colussi, Valdir
Vinkler, Robert
Machtay, Mitchell
Ellis, Rodney J.
author_sort Fredman, Elisha T.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound images are routinely acquired for low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy dosimetric preplanning (pTRUS), although diagnostic multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may serve this purpose as well. We compared the predictive abilities of TRUS vs MRI relative to intraoperative TRUS (iTRUS) to assess the role of mpMRI in brachytherapy preplanning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on 32 patients who underwent iTRUS‐guided prostate LDR brachytherapy as either mono‐ or combination therapy. 56.3% had pTRUS‐only volume studies and 43.7% had both 3T‐mpMRI and pTRUS preplanning. MRI was used for preplanning and its image fusion with iTRUS was also used for intraoperative guidance of seed placement. Differences in gland volume, seed number, and activity and procedure time were examined, as well as the identification of lesions suspicious for tumor foci. Pearson correlation coefficient and Fisher's Z test were used to estimate associations between continuous measures. RESULTS: There was good correlation of planning volumes between iTRUS and either pTRUS or MRI (r = 0.89, r = 0.77), not impacted by the addition of hormonal therapy (P = 0.65, P = 0.33). Both consistently predicted intraoperative seed number (r = 0.87, r = 0.86). MRI/TRUS fusion did not significantly increase surgical or anesthesia time (P = 0.10, P = 0.46). mpMRI revealed suspicious focal lesions in 11 of 14 cases not visible on pTRUS, that when correlated with histopathology, were incorporated into the plan. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to pTRUS, MRI yielded reliable preplanning measures, supporting the role of MRI‐only LDR treatment planning. mpMRI carries numerous diagnostic, staging and preplanning advantages that facilitate better patient selection and delivery of novel dose escalation and targeted therapy, with no additional surgical or anesthesia time. Prospective studies assessing its impact on treatment planning and delivery can serve to establish mpMRI as the standard of care in LDR prostate brachytherapy planning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6560234
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65602342019-06-17 Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation Fredman, Elisha T. Traughber, Bryan J. Gross, Andrew Podder, Tarun Colussi, Valdir Vinkler, Robert Machtay, Mitchell Ellis, Rodney J. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound images are routinely acquired for low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy dosimetric preplanning (pTRUS), although diagnostic multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may serve this purpose as well. We compared the predictive abilities of TRUS vs MRI relative to intraoperative TRUS (iTRUS) to assess the role of mpMRI in brachytherapy preplanning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on 32 patients who underwent iTRUS‐guided prostate LDR brachytherapy as either mono‐ or combination therapy. 56.3% had pTRUS‐only volume studies and 43.7% had both 3T‐mpMRI and pTRUS preplanning. MRI was used for preplanning and its image fusion with iTRUS was also used for intraoperative guidance of seed placement. Differences in gland volume, seed number, and activity and procedure time were examined, as well as the identification of lesions suspicious for tumor foci. Pearson correlation coefficient and Fisher's Z test were used to estimate associations between continuous measures. RESULTS: There was good correlation of planning volumes between iTRUS and either pTRUS or MRI (r = 0.89, r = 0.77), not impacted by the addition of hormonal therapy (P = 0.65, P = 0.33). Both consistently predicted intraoperative seed number (r = 0.87, r = 0.86). MRI/TRUS fusion did not significantly increase surgical or anesthesia time (P = 0.10, P = 0.46). mpMRI revealed suspicious focal lesions in 11 of 14 cases not visible on pTRUS, that when correlated with histopathology, were incorporated into the plan. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to pTRUS, MRI yielded reliable preplanning measures, supporting the role of MRI‐only LDR treatment planning. mpMRI carries numerous diagnostic, staging and preplanning advantages that facilitate better patient selection and delivery of novel dose escalation and targeted therapy, with no additional surgical or anesthesia time. Prospective studies assessing its impact on treatment planning and delivery can serve to establish mpMRI as the standard of care in LDR prostate brachytherapy planning. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6560234/ /pubmed/31004396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12592 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Fredman, Elisha T.
Traughber, Bryan J.
Gross, Andrew
Podder, Tarun
Colussi, Valdir
Vinkler, Robert
Machtay, Mitchell
Ellis, Rodney J.
Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
title Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
title_full Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
title_fullStr Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
title_short Comparison of multiparametric MRI‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
title_sort comparison of multiparametric mri‐based and transrectal ultrasound‐based preplans with intraoperative ultrasound‐based planning for low dose rate interstitial prostate seed implantation
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6560234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31004396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12592
work_keys_str_mv AT fredmanelishat comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT traughberbryanj comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT grossandrew comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT poddertarun comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT colussivaldir comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT vinklerrobert comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT machtaymitchell comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation
AT ellisrodneyj comparisonofmultiparametricmribasedandtransrectalultrasoundbasedpreplanswithintraoperativeultrasoundbasedplanningforlowdoserateinterstitialprostateseedimplantation