Mariwan Baker1,2,3, David T Cooper4, Claus F Behrens1. 1. 1 Department of Oncology, Radiotherapy Research Unit, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. 2 Center for Fast Ultrasound Imaging, Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. 3. 3 Center for Nuclear Technologies, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark. 4. 4 Elekta Ltd., Montréal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In cervical radiotherapy, it is essential that the uterine position is correctly determined prior to treatment delivery. The aim of this study was to evaluate an autoscan ultrasound (A-US) probe, a motorized transducer creating three-dimensional (3D) images by sweeping, by comparing it with a conventional ultrasound (C-US) probe, where manual scanning is required to acquire 3D images. METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers were scanned by seven operators, using the Clarity(®) system (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden). In total, 72 scans, 36 scans from the C-US and 36 scans from the A-US probes, were acquired. Two observers delineated the uterine structure, using the software-assisted segmentation in the Clarity workstation. The data of uterine volume, uterine centre of mass (COM) and maximum uterine lengths, in three orthogonal directions, were analyzed. RESULTS: In 53% of the C-US scans, the whole uterus was captured, compared with 89% using the A-US. F-test on 36 scans demonstrated statistically significant differences in interobserver COM standard deviation (SD) when comparing the C-US with the A-US probe for the inferior-superior (p < 0.006), left-right (p < 0.012) and anteroposterior directions (p < 0.001). The median of the interobserver COM distance (Euclidean distance for 36 scans) was reduced from 8.5 (C-US) to 6.0 mm (A-US). An F-test on the 36 scans showed strong significant differences (p < 0.001) in the SD of the Euclidean interobserver distance when comparing the C-US with the A-US scans. The average Dice coefficient when comparing the two observers was 0.67 (C-US) and 0.75 (A-US). The predictive interval demonstrated better interobserver delineation concordance using the A-US probe. CONCLUSION: The A-US probe imaging might be a better choice of image-guided radiotherapy system for correcting for daily uterine positional changes in cervical radiotherapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Using a novel A-US probe might reduce the uncertainty in interoperator variability during ultrasound scanning.
OBJECTIVE: In cervical radiotherapy, it is essential that the uterine position is correctly determined prior to treatment delivery. The aim of this study was to evaluate an autoscan ultrasound (A-US) probe, a motorized transducer creating three-dimensional (3D) images by sweeping, by comparing it with a conventional ultrasound (C-US) probe, where manual scanning is required to acquire 3D images. METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers were scanned by seven operators, using the Clarity(®) system (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden). In total, 72 scans, 36 scans from the C-US and 36 scans from the A-US probes, were acquired. Two observers delineated the uterine structure, using the software-assisted segmentation in the Clarity workstation. The data of uterine volume, uterine centre of mass (COM) and maximum uterine lengths, in three orthogonal directions, were analyzed. RESULTS: In 53% of the C-US scans, the whole uterus was captured, compared with 89% using the A-US. F-test on 36 scans demonstrated statistically significant differences in interobserver COM standard deviation (SD) when comparing the C-US with the A-US probe for the inferior-superior (p < 0.006), left-right (p < 0.012) and anteroposterior directions (p < 0.001). The median of the interobserver COM distance (Euclidean distance for 36 scans) was reduced from 8.5 (C-US) to 6.0 mm (A-US). An F-test on the 36 scans showed strong significant differences (p < 0.001) in the SD of the Euclidean interobserver distance when comparing the C-US with the A-US scans. The average Dice coefficient when comparing the two observers was 0.67 (C-US) and 0.75 (A-US). The predictive interval demonstrated better interobserver delineation concordance using the A-US probe. CONCLUSION: The A-US probe imaging might be a better choice of image-guided radiotherapy system for correcting for daily uterine positional changes in cervical radiotherapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Using a novel A-US probe might reduce the uncertainty in interoperator variability during ultrasound scanning.
Authors: Xavier Artignan; Monique H P Smitsmans; Jos V Lebesque; David A Jaffray; Marcel van Her; Harry Bartelink Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Skadi van der Meer; Esther Bloemen-van Gurp; Jolanda Hermans; Robert Voncken; Denys Heuvelmans; Carol Gubbels; Davide Fontanarosa; Peter Visser; Ludy Lutgens; Francis van Gils; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Janelle A Molloy; Gordon Chan; Alexander Markovic; Shawn McNeeley; Doug Pfeiffer; Bill Salter; Wolfgang A Tome Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Davide Fontanarosa; Skadi van der Meer; Jeffrey Bamber; Emma Harris; Tuathan O'Shea; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Philip Chan; Robert Dinniwell; Masoom A Haider; Young-Bin Cho; David Jaffray; Gina Lockwood; Wilfred Levin; Lee Manchul; Anthony Fyles; Michael Milosevic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-12-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Martin Pursch-Lee; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Sarah A Mason; Tuathan P O'Shea; Ingrid M White; Susan Lalondrelle; Kate Downey; Mariwan Baker; Claus F Behrens; Jeffrey C Bamber; Emma J Harris Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 4.071