SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of Contouring Results for Prostate Cancer Treatment Planning Obtained by Two Different Specialists

İlknur ALSAN ÇETİN
Erkan ÖZGEN
Merve SEVINDIK
Rabia ERGELEN
Ayşe DAĞLI DEĞERLİ
Pages
128–133
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In MRI plans, IMRT was superior in terms of PTV, Dmax, CI, V65, and Dmean for critical organs; however, critical organs were well preserved with both planning techniques.CONCLUSIONThere was some difference between contouring of the R and the RO, which was reflected in the treatment plans

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study is a comparison of contoured diagnostic images derived from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by both a radiation oncologist (RO) and a radiologist (R) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques.METHODSCT and MRI sections of 16 patients were contoured by the RO and the R.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Planning target volume (PTV) criteria assessed were conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), volume covered by 98% isodose line (V 98%) and maximum dose (Dmax).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In MRI plans, IMRT was superior in terms of PTV, Dmax, CI, V65, and Dmean for critical organs; however, critical organs were well preserved with both planning techniques.CONCLUSIONThere was some difference between contouring of the R and the RO, which was reflected in the treatment plans
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study is a comparison of contoured diagnostic images derived from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by both a radiation oncologist (RO) and a radiologist (R) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques.METHODSCT and MRI sections of 16 patients were contoured by the RO and the R. Planning target volume (PTV) criteria assessed were conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), volume covered by 98% isodose line (V 98%) and maximum dose (Dmax). In critical organs, 40 Gy organ area volume (V40), 65 Gy organ area volume (V65), and Dmeanstatistical analysis. criteria were evaluated. Paired samples t-test was used for RESULTSPTV and critical organs were compared. MRI PTV and bladder volume drawn by R were lower. Comparison of CT images revealed IMRT plans were superior in terms of Dmax and CI, while V40 and Dmeanvalues for rectum and bladder were lower in MRI-based VMAT plans. In MRI plans, IMRT was superior in terms of PTV, Dmax, CI, V65, and Dmean for critical organs; however, critical organs were well preserved with both planning techniques.CONCLUSIONThere was some difference between contouring of the R and the RO, which was reflected in the treatment plans

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇETİN, İ. A., ÖZGEN, E., SEVINDIK, M., ERGELEN, R., DEĞERLİ, A. D. (2022). Comparison of Contouring Results for Prostate Cancer Treatment Planning Obtained by Two Different Specialists. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 128–133. https://ajindex.com/articles/639314

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, Rossi CJ Jr, Miller DW, Adams JA, et al. Comparison of conventionaldose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233–9
  2. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, Aird EG, Bottomley D, Cowan RA, et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2007;8(6):475–87
  3. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, Antolak JA, Lee JJ, Huang E, et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53(5):1097–105
  4. Khoo VS. MRI--”magic radiotherapy imaging” for treatment planning? Br J Radiol 2000;73(867):229–33
  5. Sannazzari GL, Ragona R, Ruo Redda MG, Giglioli FR, Isolato G, Guarneri A. CT-MRI image fusion for delineation of volumes in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2002;75(895):603–7
  6. Sefrova J, Odrazka K, Paluska P, Belobradek Z, Brodak M, Dolezel M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in postprostatectomy radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(2):911–8
  7. Khoo VS, Joon DL. New developments in MRI for target volume delineation in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2006;79:2–15
  8. Smith WL, Lewis C, Bauman G, Rodrigues G, D’Souza D, Ash R, et al. Prostate volume contouring: a 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(4):1238–47
  9. Rasch C, Barillot I, Remeijer P, Touw A, van Herk M, Lebesque JV. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43(1):57–66. 10.Steenbakkers RJ, Deurloo KE, Nowak PJ, Lebesque JV, van Herk M, Rasch CR. Reduction of dose delivered to the rectum and bulb of the penis using MRI delineation for radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(5):1269–79. 11.Milosevic M, Voruganti S, Blend R, Alasti H, Warde P, McLean M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: comparison to computed tomography (CT) and urethrography. Radiother Oncol 1998;47(3):277–84. 12.Kopp RW, Duff M, Catalfamo F, Shah D, Rajecki M, Ahmad K. VMAT vs. 7-field-IMRT: assessing the dosimetric parameters of prostate cancer treatment with a 292-patient sample. Med Dosim 2011;36(4):365–72. 13.Sze HC, Lee M