Literature DB >> 15145181

Online ultrasound image guidance for radiotherapy of prostate cancer: impact of image acquisition on prostate displacement.

Xavier Artignan1, Monique H P Smitsmans, Jos V Lebesque, David A Jaffray, Marcel van Her, Harry Bartelink.   

Abstract

AIM: Numerous studies reported the use of ultrasound image-guidance system to assess and correct patient setup during radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We conducted a study to demonstrate and quantify prostate displacement resulting from pressure of the probe on the abdomen during transabdominal ultrasound image acquisition for prostate localization.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were asked to undergo one imaging procedure. The procedure was performed in a condition that simulates the localization of prostate during online ultrasound guidance. A 3D ultrasound machine was used. The procedure started with the placement of the probe on the abdomen above the pubis symphysis. The probe was tilted in a caudal and posterior direction until the prostate and seminal vesicle were visualized. The probe was then fixed with a rigid arm, which maintained the probe in a static position during image acquisition. The probe was then moved, in a short time, stepwise toward the prostate, acquiring images at each step. The prostate and seminal vesicles were identified and selected in all planes. The first 3D volume was used as reference 1, to which all other scans were matched using a gray value matching algorithm.
RESULTS: Prostate motion was quantified as a 3D translation relative to the patient coordinate system. The resulting translations represented the amount of prostate movement as a function of probe displacement. Between 7 and 11 images were obtained per volunteer, with a maximal probe displacement ranging between 3 and 6 cm. Prostate displacement was measured in all volunteers for all the probe steps and in all directions. The largest displacements occurred in the posterior direction in all volunteers. The absolute prostate motion was less than 5 mm in 100% of the volunteers after 1 cm of probe displacement, in 80% after 1.5 cm, in 40% after 2 cm, in 10% after 2.5 cm, and 0% after 3 cm. To achieved a good-quality ultrasound images, the probe requires an average displacement of 1.2 cm, and this results in an average prostate displacement of 3.1 mm. No correlations were observed between prostate motion and prostate-probe distance or bladder size.
CONCLUSION: Probe pressure during ultrasound image acquisition causes prostate displacement, which is correlated to the amount of probe displacement from initial contact. The induced uncertainty associated with this process needs to be carefully evaluated to determine a safe margin to be employed during online ultrasound image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15145181     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.01.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  20 in total

1.  Consideration of the likely benefit from implementation of prostate image-guided radiotherapy using current margin sizes: a radiobiological analysis.

Authors:  G S J Tudor; Y L Rimmer; T B Nguyen; M A Cowen; S J Thomas
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  In vivo reproducibility of robotic probe placement for a novel ultrasound-guided radiation therapy system.

Authors:  Muyinatu A Lediju Bell; H Tutkun Sen; Iulian Iordachita; Peter Kazanzides; John Wong
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-07-23

3.  Changes in rectal volume and prostate localization due to placement of a rectum-emptying tube.

Authors:  Hiroshi Fuji; Shigeyuki Murayama; Masashi Niwakawa; Raizou Yamaguchi; Ryou Yamashita; Takashi Matsui; Haruo Yamashita; Tetsuo Nishimura; Kenichi Tobisu
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  Evaluation of uterine ultrasound imaging in cervical radiotherapy; a comparison of autoscan and conventional probe.

Authors:  Mariwan Baker; David T Cooper; Claus F Behrens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Model-based correction of tissue compression for tracked ultrasound in soft tissue image-guided surgery.

Authors:  Thomas S Pheiffer; Reid C Thompson; Daniel C Rucker; Amber L Simpson; Michael I Miga
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Inferences about prostate intrafraction motion from pre- and posttreatment volumetric imaging.

Authors:  Justus Adamson; Qiuwen Wu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-06-08       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Dosimetric comparison of image guidance by megavoltage computed tomography versus bone alignment for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jörn Kalz; Florian Sterzing; Kai Schubert; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Jürgen Debus; Klaus Herfarth
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-04-16       Impact factor: 3.621

8.  Reduced rectal toxicity with ultrasound-based image guided radiotherapy using BAT (B-mode acquisition and targeting system) for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Markus Bohrer; Peter Schröder; Grit Welzel; Hansjörg Wertz; Frank Lohr; Frederik Wenz; Sabine Kathrin Mai
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 9.  Target margins in radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Slav Yartsev; Glenn Bauman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Evaluation of targeting errors in ultrasound-assisted radiotherapy.

Authors:  Michael Wang; Robert Rohling; Cheryl Duzenli; Brenda Clark; Neculai Archip
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2008-08-23       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.