PURPOSE: To compare two different ultrasound-based verification systems for prostate alignment during daily external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prostate displacements were measured prospectively in 40 patients undergoing daily EBRT. Comparison was made between a system based on the cross-modality verification method (CMVM), which uses two different imaging modalities to assess organ motion, and a system based on the intramodality verification method (IMVM), which uses only one imaging modality for such assessment. A total of 217 CMVM and 217 IMVM displacements were collected within a minute of each other. In 10 patients, IMVM displacements were also compared with those measured by sequential CT scans. RESULTS: Analysis in the paired CMVM and IMVM displacements shows a significant mean difference of 0.9 +/- 3.3 mm in the lateral and 6.0 +/- 5.1 mm in the superoinferior directions (p < 0.0001), whereas no significant difference was detected in the anteroposterior direction between the two methods. Comparison of the computed tomography scan and IMVM measured displacements shows no significant difference between the two methods, with mean values of 0.2 +/- 1.7 mm in the lateral, -0.3 +/- 1.6 mm in the anteroposterior, and 0.1 +/- 1.4 mm in the superoinferior directions. CONCLUSIONS: A significant systematic difference exists between cross-modality and intramodality methods when assessing prostate alignment during daily EBRT. Because displacements assessed by IMVM are consistent with those assessed by computed tomography scan, a more accurate prostate alignment appears to be obtained when the IMVM method is used.
PURPOSE: To compare two different ultrasound-based verification systems for prostate alignment during daily external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prostate displacements were measured prospectively in 40 patients undergoing daily EBRT. Comparison was made between a system based on the cross-modality verification method (CMVM), which uses two different imaging modalities to assess organ motion, and a system based on the intramodality verification method (IMVM), which uses only one imaging modality for such assessment. A total of 217 CMVM and 217 IMVM displacements were collected within a minute of each other. In 10 patients, IMVM displacements were also compared with those measured by sequential CT scans. RESULTS: Analysis in the paired CMVM and IMVM displacements shows a significant mean difference of 0.9 +/- 3.3 mm in the lateral and 6.0 +/- 5.1 mm in the superoinferior directions (p < 0.0001), whereas no significant difference was detected in the anteroposterior direction between the two methods. Comparison of the computed tomography scan and IMVM measured displacements shows no significant difference between the two methods, with mean values of 0.2 +/- 1.7 mm in the lateral, -0.3 +/- 1.6 mm in the anteroposterior, and 0.1 +/- 1.4 mm in the superoinferior directions. CONCLUSIONS: A significant systematic difference exists between cross-modality and intramodality methods when assessing prostate alignment during daily EBRT. Because displacements assessed by IMVM are consistent with those assessed by computed tomography scan, a more accurate prostate alignment appears to be obtained when the IMVM method is used.
Authors: Stefan Gerlach; Ivo Kuhlemann; Floris Ernst; Christoph Fürweger; Alexander Schlaefer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Stefan Gerlach; Ivo Kuhlemann; Philipp Jauer; Ralf Bruder; Floris Ernst; Christoph Fürweger; Alexander Schlaefer Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Adam D Melancon; Jennifer C O'Daniel; Lifei Zhang; Rajat J Kudchadker; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Rex M Cheung; Renaud de Crevoisier; Susan L Tucker; Wayne D Newhauser; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 6.280