RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy utilizes MR images for (online) plan adaptation and image guidance. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of variation in MR acquisition time and scan resolution on image quality, interobserver variation in contouring and interobserver variation in registration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients with prostate cancer were included. Four T2-weighted 3D turbo spin echo (T2w 3D TSE) sequences were acquired with different acquisition times and resolutions. Two radiologists assessed image quality, conspicuity of the capsule, peripheral zone and central gland architecture and motion artefacts on a 5 point scale. Images were delineated by two radiation oncologists and interobserver variation was assessed by the 95% Hausdorff distance. Seven observers registered the MR images on the planning CT. Registrations were compared on systematic offset and interobserver variation. RESULTS: Acquisition times ranged between 1.3 and 6.3 min. Overall image quality and capsule definition were significantly worse for the MR sequence with an acquisition time of 1.3 min compared to the other sequences. Median 95% Hausdorff distance showed no significant differences in interobserver variation of contouring. Systematic offset and interobserver variation in registration were small (<1 mm) and of no clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to effectively shorten overall fraction time for online adaptive MR guided radiotherapy by optimising the imaging sequence used for registration. From the sequences studied, a sequence of 3.1 min with anisotropic voxels of 1.2 × 1.2 × 2.4 mm3 provided the shortest acquisition time without compromising image quality.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate delineation of the primary tumour is vital to the success of radiotherapy and even more important for successful boost strategies, aiming for improved local control in oesophageal cancer patients. Therefore, the aim was to assess delineation variability of the gross tumour volume (GTV) between CT and combined PET-CT in oesophageal cancer patients in a multi-institutional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty observers from 14 institutes delineated the primary tumour of 6 cases on CT and PET-CT fusion. The delineated volumes, generalized conformity index (CIgen) and standard deviation (SD) in position of the most cranial/caudal slice over the observers were evaluated. For the central delineated region, perpendicular distance between median surface GTV and each individual GTV was evaluated as in-slice SD. RESULTS: After addition of PET, mean GTVs were significantly smaller in 3 cases and larger in 1 case. No difference in CIgen was observed (average 0.67 on CT, 0.69 on PET-CT). On CT cranial-caudal delineation variation ranged between 0.2 and 1.5â¯cm SD versus 0.2 and 1.3â¯cm SD on PET-CT. After addition of PET, the cranial and caudal variation was significantly reduced in 1 and 2 cases, respectively. The in-slice SD was on average 0.16â¯cm in both phases. CONCLUSION: In some cases considerable GTV delineation variability was observed at the cranial-caudal border. PET significantly influenced the delineated volume in four out of six cases, however its impact on observer variation was limited.
RESUMO
CLINICAL/METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. The diagnosis is based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy. These techniques have considerable limitations, which result in unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore the biopsies are associated with morbidity and costs. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Standard gray-scale ultrasound has a low sensitivity and specificity for prostate cancer detection. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: New ultrasound technologies, including color- and power Doppler ultrasound, contrast enhanced US and real-time sonoelastography have shown to improve prostate cancer diagnosis. PERFORMANCE: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound has shown a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 95%), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88.8% for prostate cancer detection. Real-time sonoelastography has shown a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81% and NPV of 91% for prostate cancer diagnosis. ACHIEVEMENTS: Most studies show that these new ultrasound modalities demonstrate a 1.5 to 2.5 times higher detection of prostate cancer per biopsy specimen compared with systematic biopsy. Multicenter studies results are at present lacking but are, however ongoing. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In patients with suspected prostate cancer (elevated PSA, suspicious DRE) these new ultrasound techniques should be used. These techniques can detect prostate cancer and allow a targeted biopsy approach.
