RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In-vivo source tracking has been an active topic of research in the field of high-dose rate brachytherapy in recent years to verify accuracy in treatment delivery. Although detection systems for source tracking are being developed, the allowable threshold of treatment error is still unknown and is likely patient-specific due to anatomy and planning variation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine patient and catheter-specific shift error thresholds for in-vivo source tracking during high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDRPBT). METHODS: A module was developed in the previously described graphical processor unit multi-criteria optimization (gMCO) algorithm. The module generates systematic catheter shift errors retrospectively into HDRPBT treatment plans, performed on 50 patients. The catheter shift model iterates through the number of catheters shifted in the plan (from 1 to all catheters), the direction of shift (superior, inferior, medial, lateral, cranial, and caudal), and the magnitude of catheter shift (1-6 mm). For each combination of these parameters, 200 error plans were generated, randomly selecting the catheters in the plan to shift. After shifts were applied, dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters were re-calculated. Catheter shift thresholds were then derived based on plans where DVH parameters were clinically unacceptable (prostate V100 < 95%, urethra D0.1cc > 118%, and rectum Dmax > 80%). Catheter thresholds were also Pearson correlated to catheter robustness values. RESULTS: Patient-specific thresholds varied between 1 to 6 mm for all organs, in all shift directions. Overall, patient-specific thresholds typically decrease with an increasing number of catheters shifted. Anterior and inferior directions were less sensitive than other directions. Pearson's correlation test showed a strong correlation between catheter robustness and catheter thresholds for the rectum and urethra, with correlation values of -0.81 and -0.74, respectively (p < 0.01), but no correlation was found for the prostate. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to determine thresholds for each patient, with thresholds showing dependence on shift direction, and number of catheters shifted. Not every catheter combination is explorable, however, this study shows the feasibility to determine patient-specific thresholds for clinical application. The correlation of patient-specific thresholds with the equivalent robustness value indicated the need for robustness consideration during plan optimization and treatment planning.

Asunto(s)

Braquiterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Próstata , Estudios Retrospectivos , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Catéteres , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador

RESUMEN

Objective. Both computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images are acquired for high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy patients at our institution. CT is used to identify catheters and MRI is used to segment the prostate. To address scenarios of limited MRI access, we developed a novel generative adversarial network (GAN) to generate synthetic MRI (sMRI) from CT with sufficient soft-tissue contrast to provide accurate prostate segmentation without MRI (rMRI).Approach. Our hybrid GAN, PxCGAN, was trained utilizing 58 paired CT-MRI datasets from our HDR prostate patients. Using 20 independent CT-MRI datasets, the image quality of sMRI was tested using mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index (SSIM). These metrics were compared with the metrics of sMRI generated using Pix2Pix and CycleGAN. The accuracy of prostate segmentation on sMRI was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean surface distance (MSD) on the prostate delineated by three radiation oncologists (ROs) on sMRI versus rMRI. To estimate inter-observer variability (IOV), these metrics between prostate contours delineated by each RO on rMRI and the prostate delineated by treating RO on rMRI (gold standard) were calculated.Main results. Qualitatively, sMRI images show enhanced soft-tissue contrast at the prostate boundary compared with CT scans. For MAE and MSE, PxCGAN and CycleGAN have similar results, while the MAE of PxCGAN is smaller than that of Pix2Pix. PSNR and SSIM of PxCGAN are significantly higher than Pix2Pix and CycleGAN (p < 0.01). The DSC for sMRI versus rMRI is within the range of the IOV, while the HD for sMRI versus rMRI is smaller than the HD for the IOV for all ROs (p ≤ 0.03).Significance. PxCGAN generates sMRI images from treatment-planning CT scans that depict enhanced soft-tissue contrast at the prostate boundary. The accuracy of prostate segmentation on sMRI compared to rMRI is within the segmentation variation on rMRI between different ROs.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of online adaptive transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDRPBT) through retrospective simulation of source positioning and catheter swap errors on patient treatment plans. METHOD: Source positioning errors (catheter shifts in 1 mm increments in the cranial/caudal, anterior/posterior, and medial/lateral directions up to ±6 mm) and catheter swap errors (between the most and least heavily weighted) were introduced retrospectively into DICOM treatment plans of 20 patients that previously received TRUS HDRPBT. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices were monitored as errors were introduced sequentially into individual catheters, simulating potential errors throughout treatment. Whenever DVH indices were outside institution thresholds: prostate V100% <95%, urethra D0.1cc >118% and rectum Dmax >80%, the plan was adapted using remaining catheters (i.e., simulating previous catheters as previously delivered). The final DVH indices were recorded. RESULTS: Prostate coverage (V100% >95%) could be maintained for source position errors up to 6 mm through online plan adaptation. The source position error at which the urethra D0.1cc and rectum Dmax was able to return to clinically acceptable levels using online adaptation varied between 6 mm to 1 mm, depending on the direction of the source position error and patient anatomy. After introduction of catheter swap errors to patient plans, prostate V100% was recoverable using online adaptation to near original plan characteristics. Urethra D0.1cc and rectum Dmax showed less recoverability. CONCLUSION: Online adaptive HDRPBT maintains the prostate V100% to clinically acceptable values for majority of directional shifts. However, the current online adaptive method may not correct for source position errors near organs at risk.

Asunto(s)

Braquiterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Braquiterapia/métodos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the prostate contours drawn by two radiation oncologists and one radiologist on magnetic resonance (MR) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images. TRUS intra- and inter-fraction variability as well as TRUS vs. MR inter-modality and inter-operator variability were studied. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients affected by localized prostate cancer and treated with interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy at the National Cancer Institute in Milan were included in this study. Twenty-five patients received an exclusive two-fraction (14 Gy/fraction) treatment, while the other 5 received a single 14 Gy fraction as a boost after external beam radiotherapy. The prostate was contoured on TRUS images acquired before (virtual US) and after (real US) needle implant by two radiation oncologists, whereas on MR prostate was independently contoured by the same radiation oncologists (MR1, MR2) and by a dedicated radiologist (MR3). Absolute differences of prostate volumes (│ΔV│) and craniocaudal extents (│Δdz│) were evaluated. The Dice's coefficient (DC) was calculated to quantify spatial overlap between MR contours. RESULTS: Significant difference was found between Vvirtual and Vlive (p < 0.001) for the first treatment fractions and between VMR1 and VMR2 (p = 0.043). Significant difference between cranio-caudal extents was found between dzvirtual and dzlive (p < 0.033) for the first treatment fractions, between dzvirtual of the first treatment fractions and dzMR1 (p < 0.001) and between dzMR1 and dzMR3 (p < 0.01). Oedema might be responsible for some of the changes in US volumes. Average DC values resulting from the comparison MR1 vs. MR2, MR1 vs. MR3 and MR2 vs. MR3 were 0.95 ± 0.04 (range, 0.82-0.99), 0.87 ± 0.04 (range, 0.73-0.91) and 0.87 ± 0.04 (range, 0.72-0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the importance of a multiprofessional approach to TRUS-guided HDR prostate brachytherapy. Specific training in MR and US prostate imaging is recommended for centers that are unfamiliar with HDR prostate brachytherapy.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To document the current prostate brachytherapy practice across the UK and Ireland and compare with previously published audit results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants from 25 centers attending the annual UK & Ireland Prostate Brachytherapy Conference were invited to complete an online survey. Sixty-three questions assessed the center's experience and staffing, clinician's experience, clinical selection criteria and scheduling, number of cases per modality in the preceding three years, low-dose-rate (LDR) pre- and post-implant technique and high-dose-rate (HDR) implant technique. Responses were collated, and descriptive statistical analysis performed. RESULTS: Eighteen (72%) centers responded with 17 performing LDR only, 1 performing HDR only, and 6 performing both LDR and HDR. Seventy-one percent of centers have > 10 years of LDR brachytherapy experience, whereas 71% centers that perform HDR brachytherapy have > 5 years of experience. Thirteen centers have 2 or more clinicians performing brachytherapy with 61% of lead consultants performing > 25 cases (LDR + HDR) in 2016. The number of implants (range), that includes LDR and HDR, performed by individual practitioners in 2016 was > 50 by 21%, 25-50 by 38%, and < 25 by 41%. Eight centers reported a decline in LDR monotherapy case numbers in 2016. Number of center's performing HDR brachytherapy increased in last five years. Relative uniformity in patient selection is noted, and LDR pre- and post-implant dosimetry adheres to published quality guidelines, with an average post-implant D90 of > 145 Gy in 69% of centers in 2014 and 2015 compared to 63% in 2016. The median CT/US volume ratios were > 0.9 ≤ 1.0 (n = 4), > 1.0 ≤ 1.1 (n = 7), and > 1.1 (n = 2). CONCLUSION: There is considerable prostate brachytherapy experience in the UK and Ireland. An apparent fall in LDR case numbers is noted. Maintenance of case numbers and ongoing compliance with published quality guidelines is important to sustain high quality outcomes.