4.7 Article

MRI-guided HDR prostate brachytherapy in standard 1.5T scanner

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.01.016

关键词

prostate cancer; brachytherapy; MRI; image guidance

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 HL004608-08] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides superior visualization of the prostate and surrounding anatomy, making it the modality of choice for imaging the prostate gland. This pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility and dosimetric quality achieved when placing high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy catheters under MRI guidance in a standard closed-bore 1.5T scanner. Methods and Materials: Patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer received MRI-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy boosts before and after a course of external beam radiotherapy. Using a custom visualization and targeting program, the brachytherapy catheters were placed and adjusted under MRI guidance until satisfactory implant geometry was achieved. Inverse treatment planning was performed using high-resolution T-2-weighted MRI. Results: Ten brachytherapy procedures were performed on 5 patients. The median percentage of volume receiving 100% of prescribed minimal peripheral dose (V-100) achieved was 94% (mean, 92%; 95% confidence interval, 89-95%). The urethral V-125 ranged from 0% to 18% (median, 5%), and the rectal V-75. ranged from 0% to 3.1% (median, 0.3%). In all cases, lesions highly suspicious for malignancy could be visualized on the procedural MRI, and extracapsular disease was identified in 2 patients. Conclusion: High-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy in a standard 1.5T MRI scanner is feasible and achieves favorable dosimetry within a reasonable period with high-quality image guidance. Although the procedure was well tolerated in the acute setting, additional follow-up is required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of this approach. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据