Purpose: To compare the dosimetric results between MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning in permanent prostate brachytherapy, and to estimate the accuracy of MRI-based preplanning by comparing with CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. Methods and materials: Twenty-one patients were entered in this prospective study with written informed consent. MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning were performed. The seed and needle locations were identical according to MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning. MRI-based and TRUS-based preplanning were compared using DVH-related parameters. Following brachytherapy, the accuracy of the MRI-based preplanning was evaluated by comparing it with CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. Results: Mean MRI-based prostate volume was slightly underestimated (0.73 cc in mean volume) in comparison to TRUS-based volume. There were no significant differences in the mean DVH-related parameters except with rectal V100(cc) between TRUS-based and MRI-based preplanning. Mean rectal V100(cc) was 0.74 cc in TRUS-based and 0.29 cc in MRI-based preplanning, respectively, and the values demonstrated a statistical difference. There was no statistical difference in mean rectal V150(cc), and rectal V100(cc) between MRI-based preplanning and CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry. Conclusion: Prostate volume estimation and DVH-related parameters in MRI-based preplanning were almost identical to TRUS-based preplanning. From the results of CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry, MRI-based preplanning was therefore found to be a reliable and useful modality, as well as being helpful for TRUS-based preplanning. MRI-based preplanning can more accurately predict postimplant rectal dose than TRUS-based preplanning.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging