Furthermore, the lack of a mean volume difference between TRUS an

Furthermore, the lack of a mean volume difference between TRUS and sMRI suggests that the small differences noted in medial-lateral

and anterior-posterior diameter between these two modalities are likely attributable to the minor anatomic distortion caused by the TRUS probe. Regardless, given the previously discussed susceptibility of brachytherapy treatment planning to changes in target delineation, the use of scans from different time points does limit the interpretation of our data. Of note, the visualization of the stranded seeds on the Day 30 sMRI ( Fig. 3b) did not affect treatment planning, as the images were used only for anatomic delineation and the treatment planning phase of the study considered

only the defined contours. It is also important to note that the present study Talazoparib mw used only one TRUS system with one operator. Given the well-described interoperator variability when using TRUS [5], [6], [7] and [8], it is possible that the volumetric and dosimetric comparisons made in our study may not generalize to other centers. Further, ultrasonographic technologies and techniques continue to improve (38), and improved resolution and anatomic visualization with ultrasound may provide Epigenetics Compound Library some of the same advantages as MRI. Nevertheless, given some of the inherent limitations of ultrasound, this initial volumetric and dosimetric analysis highlights some of the potential advantages of using MRI for brachytherapy treatment planning. Improved imaging modalities will continue to help enhance the 5-FU datasheet quality and consistency of prostate brachytherapy, a particularly important consideration in an era when improved quality control has become a major focus in radiation oncology. In the present study, we provide data to suggest that the improved anatomic detail visualized with MRI may confer treatment planning advantages when compared with TRUS. We further demonstrate the importance of considering the effect of imaging technique on anatomy, as the prostate gland deformation seen with staging erMRI resulted in planning challenges and could lead to treatment inaccuracy.

Future studies should continue to evaluate the use of MRI in prostate brachytherapy treatment planning and delivery. “
“Postimplant evaluation is essential for quality assurance in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy (BT). CT imaging alone is most commonly used in implant evaluation, although the prostate edge is difficult to define, particularly when considering the artifact produced by the implanted seeds. MRI is associated with greater interobserver consistency and accuracy in prostate delineation compared with CT, which tends to overestimate the prostate volume. This has been demonstrated both in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] and in those undergoing permanent seed BT [7], [8] and [9].

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>