Next Article in Journal
Antioxidant Potential of Extracts Obtained from Macro- (Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosus and Bifurcaria bifurcata) and Micro-Algae (Chlorella vulgaris and Spirulina platensis) Assisted by Ultrasound
Next Article in Special Issue
Revised Modelling of the Addition of Synchronous Chemotherapy to Radiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck—A Low α/β?
Previous Article in Journal
Gene-Therapeutic Strategies Targeting Angiogenesis in Peripheral Artery Disease
Article Menu
Issue 2 (June) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Medicines 2018, 5(2), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines5020032

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

1
Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, UK
2
Institute of Cancer Research, 237 Fulham Road, London SW3 6JB, UK
3
The Cancer Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2GW, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 31 March 2018 / Revised: 2 April 2018 / Accepted: 3 April 2018 / Published: 5 April 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances and Perspectives in Radiotherapy Treatments)
Full-Text   |   PDF [7406 KB, uploaded 3 May 2018]   |  

Abstract

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: prostate; MRI; CT; fusion; radiotherapy; stereotactic; contouring; planning prostate; MRI; CT; fusion; radiotherapy; stereotactic; contouring; planning
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Henderson, D.R.; Tree, A.C.; Harrington, K.J.; van As, N.J. Dosimetric Implications of Computerised Tomography-Only versus Magnetic Resonance-Fusion Contouring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Medicines 2018, 5, 32.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Medicines EISSN 2305-6320 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top