Implementation and utility of a daily ultrasound-based localization system with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical feasibility of daily computer-assisted transabdominal ultrasonography for target position verification in the setting of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-three patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated using a sequential tomotherapy IMRT technique (Peacock) and daily computer-assisted transabdominal ultrasonography (BAT) for target localization. Patients were instructed to maintain a full bladder and were placed in the supine position using triangulation tattoos and a leg immobilizer to minimize pelvic rotation. The BAT ultrasound system is docked to the treatment collimator and electronically imports the CT simulation target contours and isocenter. The system is able to use the machine isocenter as a reference point to overlay the corresponding CT contours onto the ultrasound images captured in the transverse and sagittal planes. A touch screen menu is used to maneuver the CT contours in three dimensions such that they match the ultrasound images. The system then displays the three-dimensional couch shifts required to produce field alignment. Data were prospectively collected to measure the frequency by which useful ultrasound images were obtained, the amount of time required for localization/setup, and the direction/magnitude of the positional adjustments.
RESULTS: Of the 23 patients, the BAT ultrasound system produced images of sufficient quality to perform the overlay of the CT contours in 19 patients such that positional verification could be reliably performed. Poor image quality was associated with patient inability to maintain a full bladder, large body habitus, or other anatomic constraints. Of the 19 assessable patients, a total of 185 treatment alignments were performed (mean 8.8/patient). For all cases, the average time required for the daily ultrasound imaging and positional adjustments was 11.9 min. After the initial 5 cases, the user experience skills improved such that the time required for image verification/positional adjustments decreased to a mean of 5.6 min. The average right-left, AP, and cranial-caudal adjustment was 2.6 +/- 2.1 mm, 4.7 +/- 2.7 mm, and 4.2 +/- 2.8 mm, respectively. Positional adjustments >10 mm were infrequent and related primarily to misidentification of the target structures on the ultrasound image, patient movement, or improper registration of the triangulation tattoos.
CONCLUSION: Daily computer-assisted BAT ultrasound positional verification of the prostate can be successfully performed through the acquisition of high-quality images in most patients with only a modest increase in treatment setup time. Positional data obtained with this system resulted in clinically meaningful adjustments in daily setup for sequential IMRT that would not be otherwise apparent from other verification modalities.