skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Prostate volume contouring: A 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the reproducibility and modality differences of prostate contouring after brachytherapy implant using three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (3DTRUS), T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR), and computed tomography (CT) imaging. Methods and Materials: Seven blinded observers contoured 10 patients' prostates, 30 day postimplant, on 3DTRUS, MR, and CT images to assess interobserver variability. Randomized images were contoured twice by each observer. We analyzed length and volume measurements and performed a 3D analysis of intra- and intermodality variation. Results: Average volume ratios were 1.16 for CT/MR, 0.90 for 3DTRUS/MR, and 1.30 for CT/3DTRUS. Overall contouring variability was largest for CT and similar for MR and 3DTRUS. The greatest variability of CT contours occurred at the posterior and anterior portions of the midgland. On MR, overall variability was smaller, with a maximum in the anterior region. On 3DTRUS, high variability occurred in anterior regions of the apex and base, whereas the prostate-rectum interface had the smallest variability. The shape of the prostate on MR was rounder, with the base and apex of similar size, whereas CT contours had broad, flat bases narrowing toward the apex. The average percent of surface area that was significantly different (95% confidence interval) for CT/MR was 4.1%;more » 3DTRUS/MR, 10.7%; and CT/3DTRUS, 6.3%. The larger variability of CT measurements made significant differences more difficult to detect. Conclusions: The contouring of prostates on CT, MR, and 3DTRUS results in systematic differences in the locations of and variability in prostate boundary definition between modalities. MR and 3DTRUS display the smallest variability and the closest correspondence.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [5];  [6];  [5];  [7];  [8]
  1. Dept. of Medical Physics, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, and Departments of Oncology and Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta (Canada). E-mail: wendy.smith@cancerboard.ab.ca
  2. Dept. of Medical Physics, London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario (Canada)|[Dept. of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario (Canada)
  3. Dept. of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario (Canada)|[Dept. of Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)|[Dept. of Medical Biophysics, Schulich School of Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)
  4. Dept. of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario (Canada)|[Dept. of Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)|[Dept. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)
  5. Dept. of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario (Canada)|[Dept. of Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)
  6. Dept. of Diagnostic Radiology, Schulich School of Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)
  7. Imaging Research Labs., Robarts Research Inst., London, Ontario (Canada)
  8. Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Canada)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20944784
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 67; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027; PII: S0360-3016(06)03511-5; Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BRACHYTHERAPY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PATIENTS; PROSTATE; RADIATION SOURCE IMPLANTS; RECTUM; SURFACE AREA

Citation Formats

Smith, Wendy L., Lewis, Craig, Bauman, Glenn, Rodrigues, George, D'Souza, David, Ash, Robert, Ho, Derek, Venkatesan, Varagur, Downey, Donal, and Fenster, Aaron. Prostate volume contouring: A 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027.
Smith, Wendy L., Lewis, Craig, Bauman, Glenn, Rodrigues, George, D'Souza, David, Ash, Robert, Ho, Derek, Venkatesan, Varagur, Downey, Donal, & Fenster, Aaron. Prostate volume contouring: A 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027.
Smith, Wendy L., Lewis, Craig, Bauman, Glenn, Rodrigues, George, D'Souza, David, Ash, Robert, Ho, Derek, Venkatesan, Varagur, Downey, Donal, and Fenster, Aaron. Thu . "Prostate volume contouring: A 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027.
@article{osti_20944784,
title = {Prostate volume contouring: A 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR},
author = {Smith, Wendy L. and Lewis, Craig and Bauman, Glenn and Rodrigues, George and D'Souza, David and Ash, Robert and Ho, Derek and Venkatesan, Varagur and Downey, Donal and Fenster, Aaron},
abstractNote = {Purpose: This study evaluated the reproducibility and modality differences of prostate contouring after brachytherapy implant using three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (3DTRUS), T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR), and computed tomography (CT) imaging. Methods and Materials: Seven blinded observers contoured 10 patients' prostates, 30 day postimplant, on 3DTRUS, MR, and CT images to assess interobserver variability. Randomized images were contoured twice by each observer. We analyzed length and volume measurements and performed a 3D analysis of intra- and intermodality variation. Results: Average volume ratios were 1.16 for CT/MR, 0.90 for 3DTRUS/MR, and 1.30 for CT/3DTRUS. Overall contouring variability was largest for CT and similar for MR and 3DTRUS. The greatest variability of CT contours occurred at the posterior and anterior portions of the midgland. On MR, overall variability was smaller, with a maximum in the anterior region. On 3DTRUS, high variability occurred in anterior regions of the apex and base, whereas the prostate-rectum interface had the smallest variability. The shape of the prostate on MR was rounder, with the base and apex of similar size, whereas CT contours had broad, flat bases narrowing toward the apex. The average percent of surface area that was significantly different (95% confidence interval) for CT/MR was 4.1%; 3DTRUS/MR, 10.7%; and CT/3DTRUS, 6.3%. The larger variability of CT measurements made significant differences more difficult to detect. Conclusions: The contouring of prostates on CT, MR, and 3DTRUS results in systematic differences in the locations of and variability in prostate boundary definition between modalities. MR and 3DTRUS display the smallest variability and the closest correspondence.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.027},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 4,
volume = 67,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Mar 15 00:00:00 EDT 2007},
month = {Thu Mar 15 00:00:00 EDT 2007}
}