Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026

07:31
Characterization of Recombination Effects in a Liquid Ionization Chamber Used for the Dosimetry of a Radiosurgical Accelerator
Published on: May 9, 2014
The effect of interobserver variability on transrectal ultrasonography-based postimplant dosimetry
Jinyu Xue1, Frank Waterman, Jay Handler
1Kimmel Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107-5097, USA. Jinyu.Xue@mail.tju.edu
Brachytherapy
|July 26, 2006
Summary
Interobserver variability in prostate contouring on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) images impacts implant quality. Differences in prostate volume delineation on postimplant TRUS images significantly affected dosimetric parameters like D90 and V100.
Area of Science:
- Medical Imaging
- Radiation Oncology
- Prostate Cancer Treatment
Background:
- Accurate delineation of prostate volume is crucial for effective brachytherapy.
- Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) is commonly used for imaging during and after prostate brachytherapy.
- Interobserver variability in image interpretation can affect treatment outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the variability between observers when contouring the prostate on postimplant transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) images.
- To evaluate the impact of this contouring variability on key dosimetric parameters (D90 and V100).
- To compare interobserver variability in postimplant TRUS imaging with preimplant TRUS imaging.
Main Methods:
- Twenty prostate implants using 125I seeds were performed.
- Postimplant TRUS images were acquired, with >85% of seeds localized directly.
- Three experts independently contoured prostate volumes on pre- and postimplant TRUS images.
Main Results:
- Significant interobserver variability was found in prostate volume contouring on postimplant TRUS images (median SD 11%).
- This variability led to significant differences in calculated D90 (median SD 7.8%) and V100 (median SD 4.0%).
- Interobserver variability was less pronounced on preimplant TRUS images compared to postimplant images.
Conclusions:
- Significant interobserver differences exist in prostate contouring on postimplant TRUS images.
- These differences are smaller than those typically reported for postimplant CT images.
- Variability in prostate contouring significantly impacts dosimetric parameters (D90, V100), affecting implant quality assessment.

