Purpose: To investigate inter-/intra-observer variability in defining the prostate by use of planning computed tomography (PCT) and cone beam CT (CBCT) with magnetic resonance image (MRI) as guidance prior to the introduction of an adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
Material And Methods: We reviewed PCT and firstly acquired CBCT datasets of each ten patients with prostate cancer. Three physicians independently delineated the prostate based on PCT and CBCT with MRI as guidance, allowing determination of inter-physician variability. Two physicians repeated prostate contouring three times in total to investigate intra-physician variability. We compared delineated prostate volumes in terms of the generalized conformity index (CI(gen)), maximum variation ratio (MVR), and center of mass (COM).
Results: There were no significant inter-/intra-observer differences in the estimation of prostate volume on both PCT and CBCT. For both inter- and intra-observer variability in contouring the prostate gland, there were no significant differences in MVR between PCT and CBCT. The CI(gen) for inter-observer variability was 0.74 by PCT and 0.69 by CBCT. The CI(gen) for intra-observer variability on PCT and CBCT was 0.84 and 0.81 for observer 2 and 0.76 and 0.73 for observer 3. COM analyses showed that the greatest inter-/intra-observer variability was in the measurement of the prostate apex and base. With respect to CI(gen) and COM analysis for the inter-observer variability, more precise delineation of the prostate was possible on PCT than CBCT. More precise contouring in terms of both CI(gen) and COM was demonstrated by observer 2 than observer 3.
Conclusions: Despite some ambiguity in apex and base level, there was a good consistency in delineating the gland on CBCT plus MRI-guided modification both among/within observer(s), without any significant difference from the consistency in defining the prostate on PCT. This study provides a framework for future studies of CBCT imaging of the prostate.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2011.562916 | DOI Listing |
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
October 2024
Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital, PL180, 00029 HUS, Finland.
Background And Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning is based on a planning computed tomography scan (pCT), while the decision to treat is often already established on a diagnostic CT scan (dCT). The objective of this study was to evaluate the usage of dCT for palliative radiation planning of soft tissue tumoral masses (STTMs), removing the need for a pCT scan and associated attendances.
Materials And Methods: RT planning was performed retrospectively to 38 STTMs of 7 anatomical sites using volumetric modulated arc therapy techniques in dCT and transferred to pCT.
Med Phys
December 2024
Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Adv Radiat Oncol
November 2024
Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether virtual computed tomography (vCT) derived from daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), or on-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can replace quality assurance computed tomography (qCT) in our clinical workflow to minimize imaging dose and potentially anesthesia exposure in patients requiring plan adaptation.
Methods And Materials: Pediatric patients (age <24 years) treated from 2020 to 2023 with intensity modulated proton therapy with at least 1 qCT during proton therapy were eligible. For cases that required plan adaptation, the dose was recalculated on vCT and compared with same-day qCT as well as the original planning computed tomography (pCT).
Radiother Oncol
January 2025
Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China; Institute of Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China; Hubei Key Laboratory of Precision Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China. Electronic address:
Sci Rep
November 2024
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science & Technology, Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea.
During a radiotherapy (RT) course, geometrical variations of target volumes, organs at risk, weight changes (loss/gain), tumor regression and/or progression can significantly affect the treatment outcome. Adaptive RT has become the effective methods along with technical advancements in imaging modalities including cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Planning CT (pCT) can be modified via deformable image registration (DIR), which is applied to the pair of pCT and CBCT.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!