Literature DB >> 18383674

Comparison of mega-voltage cone-beam computed tomography prostate localization with online ultrasound and fiducial markers methods.

Olivier Gayou1, Moyed Miften.   

Abstract

The online image-guided localization data from 696 ultrasound (US), 598 mega-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT), and 393 seed markers (SMs) couch alignments for patients undergoing intensity modulation radiotherapy of the prostate were analyzed. Daily US, MV-CBCT and SM images were acquired for 19, 17 and 12 patients, respectively, after each patient was immobilized in a vacuum cradle and setup to skin markers as the center of mass. The couch shifts applied in the lateral (left-right/LR), vertical (anterior-posterior/AP), and longitudinal (superior-inferior/SI) directions, along with the magnitude of the three-dimensional (3D) shift vector, were analyzed and compared for all three methods. The percentage of shifts larger than 5 mm in all directions was also compared. Clinical target volume-planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) expansion margins were estimated based on the localization data with US, CB, and SM image guidance. Results show the US data have greater variability. Systematic and random shifts were -1.2 +/- 6.8 mm (LR), -2.8 +/- 5.1 mm (SI) and -1.0 +/- 5.9 mm (AP) for US, 1.0 +/- 3.9 mm (LR), -1.3 +/- 2.5 mm (SI) and -0.3 +/- 3.9 mm (AP) for CB, and -1.0 +/- 3.4 mm (LR), 0.0 +/- 3.4 mm (SI) and 0.5 +/- 4.1 mm (AP) for SM. The mean 3D shift distance was larger using US (8.8 +/- 6.2 mm) compared to CB and SM (5.3 +/- 3.4 mm and 5.2 +/- 3.7 mm, respectively). The percentage of US shifts larger than 5 mm were 34%, 31%, and 38% in the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively, compared to 18%, 6%, and 16% for CB and 14%, 10%, and 20% for SM. MV-CBCT and SM localization data suggest a different distribution of prostate center-of-mass shifts with smaller variability, compared to US. The online MV-CBCT and SM image-guidance data show that for treatments that do not include daily prostate localization, one can use a CTV-to-PTV margin that is 4 mm smaller than the one suggested by US data, hence allowing more rectum and bladder sparing and potentially improving the therapeutic ratio.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18383674     DOI: 10.1118/1.2830381

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  12 in total

1.  Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline.

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

2.  A survey of image-guided radiation therapy use in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel R Simpson; Joshua D Lawson; Sameer K Nath; Brent S Rose; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Prostate image-guided radiotherapy by megavolt cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Sergio Zucca; Barbara Carau; Ignazio Solla; Elisabetta Garibaldi; Paolo Farace; Giancarlo Lay; Gianfranco Meleddu; Pietro Gabriele
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  An error analysis perspective for patient alignment systems.

Authors:  Michael Figl; Marcus Kaar; Rainer Hoffman; Alfred Kratochwil; Johann Hummel
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 5.  Target margins in radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

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

6.  A comparison of radiographic techniques and electromagnetic transponders for localization of the prostate.

Authors:  Ryan D Foster; David A Pistenmaa; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Comparison of measurement methods with a mixed effects procedure accounting for replicated evaluations (COM3PARE): method comparison algorithm implementation for head and neck IGRT positional verification.

Authors:  Anuradha Roy; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization.

Authors:  Ryan D Foster; Timothy D Solberg; Haisen S Li; Andrew Kerkhoff; Charles A Enke; Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupelian
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Influence of acquisition parameters on MV-CBCT image quality.

Authors:  Olivier Gayou
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Three-dimensional surface and ultrasound imaging for daily IGRT of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marco Krengli; Gianfranco Loi; Carla Pisani; Debora Beldì; Giuseppina Apicella; Valentina Amisano; Marco Brambilla
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.