Premium
Prostate brachytherapy seed identification on post‐implant TRUS images
Author(s) -
Han Ben H.,
Wallner Kent,
Merrick Gregory,
Butler Wayne,
Sutlief Steven,
Sylvester John
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.1568976
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , implant , medicine , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , medical physics , radiology , surgery , radiation therapy
TRUS is a conceptually appealing alternative to CT‐based dosimetry, offering the substantial practical advantage of being readily available intraoperatively. To test the feasibility and reliability of seed identification on post‐implant TRUS using standard two‐dimensional images, ten patients treated with I‐125 or Pd‐103 brachytherapy were studied. A set of transverse images (6 MHz) were taken immediately following completion of the implant procedure. Original thermal images were sent to four physicians and the sources were identified independently by placing marks on a cellophane overlay, with grids to match the axial TRUS images. The number and type of seed implanted were not revealed to the investigators. Instead, they were instructed to mark the positions of what they would consider, with reasonable certainty, to be seeds. The overlays were then manually compared for source identification and agreement between observers regarding each alleged source. The actual number of implanted seeds ranged from 44 to 108 (median: 60). In contrast, the mean number of seeds allegedly identified per patients ranged from 26 to 82 (median: 43). The average percent of the seeds allegedly identified per patient ranged from 51% to 83% (mean: 74%). The four physician investigators—KW, JS, BH, and GM—identified an alleged median of 90%, 44%, 63%, and 91% of the total seeds, respectively. There were five instances in which investigators alleged more seeds than were actually implanted. The consistency of seed identification among the investigators was evaluated by noting how many investigators identified each bright spot on the images. The percent of bright spots identified by all four investigators ranged from 8% to 33% (median: 20%). Despite considerable interest among some of our clinical and commercial colleagues in developing TRUS‐based intraoperative post‐implant dosimetry, the use of TRUS‐based seed identification for post‐implant dosimetry should be viewed with skepticism.