PURPOSE: To investigate the use of a bladder ultrasound scanner in achieving a better reproducible bladder filling during irradiation of pelvic tumors, specifically prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: First, the accuracy of the bladder ultrasound scanner relative to computed tomography was validated in a group of 26 patients. Next, daily bladder volume variation was evaluated in a group of 18 patients. Another 16 patients participated in a biofeedback protocol, aiming at a more constant bladder volume. The last objective was to study correlations between prostate motion and bladder filling, by using electronic portal imaging device data on implanted gold markers. RESULTS: A strong correlation between bladder scanner volume and computed tomography volume (r = 0.95) was found. Daily bladder volume variation was very high (1 SD = 47.2%). Bladder filling and daily variation did not significantly differ between the control and the feedback group (47.2% and 40.1%, respectively). Furthermore, no linear correlations between bladder volume variation and prostate motion were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows large variations in daily bladder volume. The use of a biofeedback protocol yields little reduction in bladder volume variation. Even so, the bladder scanner is an easy to use and accurate tool to register these variations.
PURPOSE: To investigate the use of a bladder ultrasound scanner in achieving a better reproducible bladder filling during irradiation of pelvic tumors, specifically prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: First, the accuracy of the bladder ultrasound scanner relative to computed tomography was validated in a group of 26 patients. Next, daily bladder volume variation was evaluated in a group of 18 patients. Another 16 patients participated in a biofeedback protocol, aiming at a more constant bladder volume. The last objective was to study correlations between prostate motion and bladder filling, by using electronic portal imaging device data on implanted gold markers. RESULTS: A strong correlation between bladder scanner volume and computed tomography volume (r = 0.95) was found. Daily bladder volume variation was very high (1 SD = 47.2%). Bladder filling and daily variation did not significantly differ between the control and the feedback group (47.2% and 40.1%, respectively). Furthermore, no linear correlations between bladder volume variation and prostate motion were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows large variations in daily bladder volume. The use of a biofeedback protocol yields little reduction in bladder volume variation. Even so, the bladder scanner is an easy to use and accurate tool to register these variations.
Authors: S Hynds; C K McGarry; D M Mitchell; S Early; L Shum; D P Stewart; J A Harney; C R Cardwell; J M O'Sullivan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Giuseppe Ferrera; Gianluca Mortellaro; Mariella Mannino; Giovanni Caminiti; Antonio Spera; Vanessa Figlia; Giuseppina Iacoviello; Gioacchino Di Paola; Rosario Mazzola; Antonio Lo Casto; Filippo Alongi; Maria Pia Pappalardo; Roberto Lagalla Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Peter F Orio; Gregory S Merrick; Zachariah A Allen; Wayne M Butler; Kent E Wallner; Brian S Kurko; Robert W Galbreath Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 3.481