Brachytherapy
Volume 5, Issue 3 , Pages 174-182 , July 2006

The effect of interobserver variability on transrectal ultrasonography-based postimplant dosimetry

  • Jinyu Xue

      Affiliations

    • Kimmel Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 111 South 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107-5097. Tel.: +1-215-955-8247; fax: +1-215-955-0412.
    • ,
  • Frank Waterman

      Affiliations

    • Kimmel Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
    • ,
  • Jay Handler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Frankford Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
    • ,
  • Eric Gressen

      Affiliations

    • Kimmel Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA

Received 27 March 2006 ,Revised 15 May 2006 ,Accepted 30 May 2006.

References 

  1. Stock RG, Stone NN, Lo YC, et al. Postimplant dosimetry for 125I prostate implants: Definitions and factors affecting outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:899–906
  2. Yu Y, Anderson LL, Li Z, et al. Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64. Med Phys. 1999;26:2054–2076
  3. Nag S, Bice W, DeWyngaert K, et al. The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetric analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:221–230
  4. Lee WR, Roach M, Michalski J, et al. Interobserver variability leads to significant differences in quantifiers of prostate implant adequacy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:457–461
  5. Al-Qaisieh B, Ash D, Bottomley AM, et al. Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. Radiat Oncol. 2002;62:267–273
  6. Crook J, Milosevic M, Catton P, et al. Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2002;1:66–73
  7. Han BH, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. The effect of interobserver differences in post-implant CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters. Med Phys. 2003;30:1096–1102
  8. Dubois DF, Prestidge BR, Hotchkiss LA, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiology. 1998;207:785–789
  9. Han BH, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. Prostate brachytherapy seed identification on post-implant TRUS images. Med Phys. 2003;30:898–900
  10. Xue J, Waterman FM, Gressen EL, et al. Localization of linked 125I seeds in postimplant TUS images for prostate brachytherapy dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:912–919
  11. Davis BJ, Kinnick RR, Fatemi M, et al. Measurement of the ultrasound backscatter signal from three seed types as a function of incidence angle: Application to permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:1174–1182
  12. Smith S, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. Interpretation of pre- versus post-implant TRUS images. Med Phys. 2003;20:920–924
  13. Solhjem MC, Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, et al. Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound and computed tomography before and after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:767–776
  14. Helmick B, Tarver R, Chan R, et al. Evaluation of post-plan dosimetry using TRUS and CT after transperineal prostate seed implant. Med Dosim. 2002;27:289–293
  15. Waterman FM, Dicker AP. Impact of postimplant edema on V100 and D90 in prostate brachytherapy: Can implant quality be predicted on day 0?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:610–621
  16. Taussky D, Austen L, Ants T, et al. Sequential evaluation of prostate edema after permanent seed prostate brachytherapy using CT-MRI fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:974–980
  17. Papagikos MA, deGuzman AF, Rossi PJ, et al. Dosimetric quantifier for low dose rate prostate brachytherapy: V100 is superior to D90. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:S200–S201
  18. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al. The dependence of prostate postimplant dosimetry on CT volume determination. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:1111–1117

 Financial disclosure: This work was supported in part by C.R. Bard, Inc.

PII: S1538-4721(06)00200-5

doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2006.05.002

Brachytherapy
Volume 5, Issue 3 , Pages 174-182 , July 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution