Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2007 Jun 1;68(2):491-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.021. Epub 2007 Feb 27.

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours

Akila N Viswanathan  1 , Johannes Dimopoulos, Christian Kirisits, Daniel Berger, Richard Pötter
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging-based contouring in cervical cancer brachytherapy: results of a prospective trial and preliminary guidelines for standardized contours

Akila N Viswanathan et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the contours and dose-volume histograms (DVH) of the tumor and organs at risk (OAR) with computed tomography (CT) vs. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in cervical cancer brachytherapy.

Methods and materials: Ten patients underwent both MRI and CT after applicator insertion. The dose received by at least 90% of the volume (D(90)), the minimal target dose (D(100)), the volume treated to the prescription dose or greater for tumor for the high-risk (HR) and intermediate-risk (IR) clinical target volume (CTV) and the dose to 0.1 cm3, 1 cm3, and 2 cm3 for the OARs were evaluated. A standardized approach to contouring on CT (CT(Std)) was developed, implemented (HR- and IR-CTV(CTStd)), and compared with the MRI contours.

Results: Tumor height, thickness, and total volume measurements, as determined by either CT or CT(Std) were not significantly different compared with the MRI volumes. In contrast, the width measurements differed in HR-CTV(CTStd) (p = 0.05) and IR-CTV(CTStd) (p = 0.01). For the HR-CTV(CTStd), this resulted in statistically significant differences in the volume treated to the prescription dose or greater (MRI, 96% vs. CT(Std), 86%, p = 0.01), D(100) (MRI, 5.4 vs. CT(Std), 3.4, p <0.01), and D(90) (MRI, 8.7 vs. CT(Std), 6.7, p <0.01). Correspondingly, the IR-CTV DVH values on MRI vs. CT(Std), differed in the D(100) (MRI, 3.0 vs. CT(Std), 2.2, p = 0.01) and D(90) (MRI, 5.6 vs. CT(Std), 4.6, p = 0.02). The MRI and CT DVH values of the dose to 0.1 cm3, 1 cm3, and 2 cm3 for the OARs were similar.

Conclusion: Computed tomography-based or MRI-based scans at brachytherapy are adequate for OAR DVH analysis. However, CT tumor contours can significantly overestimate the tumor width, resulting in significant differences in the D(90), D(100), and volume treated to the prescription dose or greater for the HR-CTV compared with that using MRI. MRI remains the standard for CTV definition.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types