Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dubois, D. F.
Right arrow Articles by Bice, W. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dubois, D. F.
Right arrow Articles by Bice, W. S., Jr

Radiology, Vol 207, 785-789, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT- derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy

DF Dubois, BR Prestidge, LA Hotchkiss, JJ Prete and WS Bice Jr
Department of Radiation Oncology Service, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX 78236-5300, USA.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative accuracy and precision of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in the assessment of postimplantation prostate volume by determining intraobserver, interobserver, and intermodality variations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MR images of 41 consecutive patients, after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy, were evaluated by two physicians to determine interobserver and intermodality variability in prostate volume measurements. Repeat evaluation in five randomly selected patients was used to determine intraobserver variability. RESULTS: Observer 1 versus 2 CT-determined mean prostate volume difference was statistically significant (-8.5 cm3 +/- 9.74 [standard deviation], P < .001); observer 1 versus 2 MR-determined mean prostate volume difference was not significant (1.9 cm3 +/- 11.7, P = .492). CT intraobserver range of dimensional errors was 3.5 and 11.4 times that of MR imaging. Observer 1 CT and MR volumes were significantly different (P = .001); observer 2 CT and MR volumes were not significantly different (P = .079). CONCLUSION: With both CT and MR imaging, variation is less when evaluations are conducted by one observer. Variation in one observer may be further reduced by using MR imaging in place of CT.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
C A McBAIN, C J MOORE, M M L GREEN, G PRICE, J S SYKES, A AMER, V S KHOO, and P PRICE
Early clinical evaluation of a novel three-dimensional structure delineation software tool (SCULPTER) for radiotherapy treatment planning
Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2008; 81(968): 643 - 652.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Halligan and D. F. Dubois
Statistical Evaluation of Agreement • Dr Dubois responds:
Radiology, February 1, 1999; 210(3): 881a - 882.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1998 by the Radiological Society of North America.