PURPOSE: To evaluate inter- and intrafraction organ motion with an ultrasound-based prostate localization system (BAT) for patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After set-up to external skin marks, 260/219 ultrasound-based alignments were performed before/after irradiation in 32 consecutive patients. Image quality was classified as good, satisfactory or poor. Patient- and imaging-related parameters were analyzed to identify predictors for poor image quality. Shifts in relation to the treatment planning computed tomography (CT) were recorded before/after irradiation in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and right-left (RL) directions to determine inter-/intrafraction prostate motion. RESULTS: The thickness of tissue anterior to the bladder and bladder volume during the ultrasound localization as well as an inferior prostate position relative to public symphysis (determined in treatment planning CT) were found to be independent predictors of a poor image quality. Interfraction shifts (mean+/-standard deviation: -0.2+/-4.8 [SI], 2.4+/-6.6 [AP] and 1.9+/-4.6 [RL]) varied much stronger than intrafraction shifts (0.0+/-2.0 [SI], 0.6+/-2.2 [AP] and 0.2+/-1.9 [RL]). A larger pressure of the ultrasound probe (determined as a larger reduction of the distance abdominal skin to prostate between the planning CT and the ultrasound) was applied in case of poor image quality, associated with larger systematic posterior prostate displacements. CONCLUSION: Intrafraction prostate shifts are considerably smaller in comparison to interfraction shifts. Bladder filling and a small pressure on the ultrasound probe are crucial to achieve an adequate image quality without systematic prostate displacements.
PURPOSE: To evaluate inter- and intrafraction organ motion with an ultrasound-based prostate localization system (BAT) for patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After set-up to external skin marks, 260/219 ultrasound-based alignments were performed before/after irradiation in 32 consecutive patients. Image quality was classified as good, satisfactory or poor. Patient- and imaging-related parameters were analyzed to identify predictors for poor image quality. Shifts in relation to the treatment planning computed tomography (CT) were recorded before/after irradiation in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and right-left (RL) directions to determine inter-/intrafraction prostate motion. RESULTS: The thickness of tissue anterior to the bladder and bladder volume during the ultrasound localization as well as an inferior prostate position relative to public symphysis (determined in treatment planning CT) were found to be independent predictors of a poor image quality. Interfraction shifts (mean+/-standard deviation: -0.2+/-4.8 [SI], 2.4+/-6.6 [AP] and 1.9+/-4.6 [RL]) varied much stronger than intrafraction shifts (0.0+/-2.0 [SI], 0.6+/-2.2 [AP] and 0.2+/-1.9 [RL]). A larger pressure of the ultrasound probe (determined as a larger reduction of the distance abdominal skin to prostate between the planning CT and the ultrasound) was applied in case of poor image quality, associated with larger systematic posterior prostate displacements. CONCLUSION: Intrafraction prostate shifts are considerably smaller in comparison to interfraction shifts. Bladder filling and a small pressure on the ultrasound probe are crucial to achieve an adequate image quality without systematic prostate displacements.
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Jaroslav Siluschek; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Cengiz Demirel; Branka Asadpour; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Helen A McNair; Vibeke N Hansen; Christopher C Parker; Phil M Evans; Andrew Norman; Elizabeth Miles; Emma J Harris; Louise Del-Acroix; Elizabeth Smith; Richard Keane; Vincent S Khoo; Alan C Thompson; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Jaroslav Siluschek; Bernd Gagel; Cengiz Demirel; Branka Asadpour; Richard Holy; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-11-27 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: A Jackson; M W Skwarchuk; M J Zelefsky; D M Cowen; E S Venkatraman; S Levegrun; C M Burman; G J Kutcher; Z Fuks; S A Liebel; C C Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Una M O'Doherty; Helen A McNair; Andrew R Norman; Elizabeth Miles; Simon Hooper; Mark Davies; Naomi Lincoln; Jan Balyckyi; Peter Childs; David P Dearnaley; Robert A Huddart Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-06-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Martin Dolezel; Karel Odrazka; Milan Zouhar; Miloslava Vaculikova; Jana Sefrova; Jan Jansa; Petr Paluska; Tereza Kohlova; Jaroslav Vanasek; Josef Kovarik Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Martin Dolezel; Karel Odrazka; Miloslava Vaculikova; Jaroslav Vanasek; Jana Sefrova; Petr Paluska; Milan Zouhar; Jan Jansa; Zuzana Macingova; Lida Jarosova; Milos Brodak; Petr Moravek; Igor Hartmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Richard Holy; Marc D Piroth; Karin Fischedick; Sandra Schaar; Dalma Székely-Orbán; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 3.481