Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

AIM: Reliable post-implant evaluation of prostate seed implants requires optimal seed identification and accurate delineation of anatomical structures. In this study the GEC-ESTRO groups BRAPHYQS and PROBATE investigated the interobserver variability in post-implant prostate contouring, seed reconstruction and image fusion and its impact on the dose-volume parameters. MATERIALS: Post-implant T2-TSE, T1-GE and CT images were acquired for three patients, in order to evaluate four post-plan techniques: (a) CT, (b) T1+T2, (c) CT+T2, (d) CT+T1(int)+T2. Three interobserver studies were set up. (1) Contouring: the CTV-prostate was delineated on CT and T2 by eight physicians. Additionally one reference contour was defined on both image modalities for each patient. (2) Seed reconstruction: seven physicists localised the seeds on T1 and CT, manually and with CT seed finder tools. A reference seed geometry was defined on CT and T1. (3) Fusion: six physicists registered the image sets for technique (b)-(d), using seeds (if visible) and anatomical landmarks. A reference fusion was determined for each combined technique. RESULTS: (1) The SD(ref) for contouring (1 SD with respect to the reference volume) was largest for CT (23%), but also surprisingly large for MRI (17%). This resulted in large SD(ref) values for D90 for all techniques (17-23%). The surprisingly large SD(ref) for MRI was partly due to variations in interpretation of what to include in the prostate contour. (2) The SD(ref) in D90 for seed reconstruction was small (2%) for all techniques, except for T1+T2 (7%). (3) The SD(ref) in D90 due to image fusion was quite large, especially for direct fusion of CT+T2 (16%) where clearly corresponding landmarks were missing (seeds hardly visible on T2). In general, we observed large differences in D90 depending on the technique used. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric parameters for prostate post-implant evaluation showed large technique-dependent interobserver variabilities. Contouring and image fusion are the 'weak links' in the procedure. Guidelines and training in contouring together with incorporation of automated fusion software need to be implemented.

Original publication




Journal article


Radiother Oncol

Publication Date





192 - 198


Brachytherapy, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Observer Variation, Prostatic Neoplasms, Radioisotopes, Radiometry, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Safety Management, Sampling Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed