INTRODUCTION: This investigation aimed to assess the consistency and accuracy of radiation therapists (RTs) performing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) alignment to fiducial markers (FMs) (CBCTFM ) and the soft tissue prostate (CBCTST ). METHODS: Six patients receiving prostate radiation therapy underwent daily CBCTs. Manual alignment of CBCTFM and CBCTST was performed by three RTs. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using a modified Bland-Altman analysis for each alignment method. Clinically acceptable 95% limits of agreement with the mean (LoAmean ) were defined as ±2.0 mm for CBCTFM and ±3.0 mm for CBCTST . Differences between CBCTST alignment and the observer-averaged CBCTFM (AvCBCTFM ) alignment were analysed. Clinically acceptable 95% LoA were defined as ±3.0 mm for the comparison of CBCTST and AvCBCTFM . RESULTS: CBCTFM and CBCTST alignments were performed for 185 images. The CBCTFM 95% LoAmean were within ±2.0 mm in all planes. CBCTST 95% LoAmean were within ±3.0 mm in all planes. Comparison of CBCTST with AvCBCTFM resulted in 95% LoA of -4.9 to 2.6, -1.6 to 2.5 and -4.7 to 1.9 mm in the superior-inferior, left-right and anterior-posterior planes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found between soft tissue alignment and the predicted FM position. FMs are useful in reducing inter-observer variability compared with soft tissue alignment. Consideration needs to be given to margin design when using soft tissue matching due to increased inter-observer variability. This study highlights some of the complexities of soft tissue guidance for prostate radiation therapy.
INTRODUCTION: This investigation aimed to assess the consistency and accuracy of radiation therapists (RTs) performing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) alignment to fiducial markers (FMs) (CBCTFM ) and the soft tissue prostate (CBCTST ). METHODS: Six patients receiving prostate radiation therapy underwent daily CBCTs. Manual alignment of CBCTFM and CBCTST was performed by three RTs. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using a modified Bland-Altman analysis for each alignment method. Clinically acceptable 95% limits of agreement with the mean (LoAmean ) were defined as ±2.0 mm for CBCTFM and ±3.0 mm for CBCTST . Differences between CBCTST alignment and the observer-averaged CBCTFM (AvCBCTFM ) alignment were analysed. Clinically acceptable 95% LoA were defined as ±3.0 mm for the comparison of CBCTST and AvCBCTFM . RESULTS: CBCTFM and CBCTST alignments were performed for 185 images. The CBCTFM 95% LoAmean were within ±2.0 mm in all planes. CBCTST 95% LoAmean were within ±3.0 mm in all planes. Comparison of CBCTST with AvCBCTFM resulted in 95% LoA of -4.9 to 2.6, -1.6 to 2.5 and -4.7 to 1.9 mm in the superior-inferior, left-right and anterior-posterior planes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found between soft tissue alignment and the predicted FM position. FMs are useful in reducing inter-observer variability compared with soft tissue alignment. Consideration needs to be given to margin design when using soft tissue matching due to increased inter-observer variability. This study highlights some of the complexities of soft tissue guidance for prostate radiation therapy.
Authors: Jasmin Loh; Katie Baker; Swetha Sridharan; Peter Greer; Chris Wratten; Anne Capp; Sarah Gallagher; Jarad Martin Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 3.481