PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based setup corrections as compared with orthogonal megavoltage (MV) portal image-based corrections for patients undergoing external-beam radiotherapy of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Daily cone-beam CT volumetric images were acquired after setup for patients with three intraprostatic fiducial markers. The estimated couch shifts were compared retrospectively to patient adjustments based on two orthogonal MV portal images (the current clinical standard of care in our institution). The CBCT soft-tissue based shifts were also estimated by digitally removing the gold markers in each projection to suppress the artifacts in the reconstructed volumes. A total of 256 volumetric images for 15 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: The Pearson coefficient of correlation for the patient position shifts using fiducial markers in MV vs. kV was (R2 = 0.95, 0.84, 0.81) in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. The correlation using soft-tissue matching was as follows: R2 = 0.90, 0.49, 0.51 in the LR, AP and SI directions. A Bland-Altman analysis showed no significant trends in the data. The percentage of shifts within a +/-3-mm tolerance (the clinical action level) was 99.7%, 95.5%, 91.3% for fiducial marker matching and 99.5%, 70.3%, 78.4% for soft-tissue matching. CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam CT is an accurate and precise tool for image guidance. It provides an equivalent means of patient setup correction for prostate patients with implanted gold fiducial markers. Use of the additional information provided by the visualization of soft-tissue structures is an active area of research.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based setup corrections as compared with orthogonal megavoltage (MV) portal image-based corrections for patients undergoing external-beam radiotherapy of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Daily cone-beam CT volumetric images were acquired after setup for patients with three intraprostatic fiducial markers. The estimated couch shifts were compared retrospectively to patient adjustments based on two orthogonal MV portal images (the current clinical standard of care in our institution). The CBCT soft-tissue based shifts were also estimated by digitally removing the gold markers in each projection to suppress the artifacts in the reconstructed volumes. A total of 256 volumetric images for 15 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: The Pearson coefficient of correlation for the patient position shifts using fiducial markers in MV vs. kV was (R2 = 0.95, 0.84, 0.81) in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. The correlation using soft-tissue matching was as follows: R2 = 0.90, 0.49, 0.51 in the LR, AP and SI directions. A Bland-Altman analysis showed no significant trends in the data. The percentage of shifts within a +/-3-mm tolerance (the clinical action level) was 99.7%, 95.5%, 91.3% for fiducial marker matching and 99.5%, 70.3%, 78.4% for soft-tissue matching. CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam CT is an accurate and precise tool for image guidance. It provides an equivalent means of patient setup correction for prostate patients with implanted gold fiducial markers. Use of the additional information provided by the visualization of soft-tissue structures is an active area of research.
Authors: James S Welsh; Rakesh R Patel; Mark A Ritter; Paul M Harari; T Rockwell Mackie; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-08
Authors: David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael B Sharpe; Douglas J Moseley; Thomas G Purdie; Mohammad Islam; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; David A Jaffray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: J Wu; T Haycocks; H Alasti; G Ottewell; N Middlemiss; M Abdolell; P Warde; A Toi; C Catton Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Christopher F Serago; Suzanne J Chungbin; Steven J Buskirk; Gary A Ezzell; A Craig Collie; Sujay A Vora Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jody Morr; Thomas DiPetrillo; Jen San Tsai; Mark Engler; David E Wazer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Homan Dehnad; Aart J Nederveen; Uulke A van der Heide; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Pieter Hofman; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Clifton D Fuller; Todd J Scarbrough; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Coen R N Rasch; Mehee Choi; Joe Y Ting; Samuel J Wang; Niko Papanikolaou; David I Rosenthal Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 3.609