Apoorva Trivedi1, Takamura Ashikaga2, Daphne Hard3, Jessica Archambault3, Martin Lachaine4, David T Cooper4, Harold James Wallace5. 1. Medical student, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont. 2. Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont. 3. Radiation Oncology, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont. 4. Elekta, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont; University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, Vermont. Electronic address: James.Wallace@uvmhealth.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) allows for continuous imaging of the prostate gland, but the accuracy of TPUS has not been rigorously studied. We determined the feasibility of prostate imaging with TPUS and subsequently compared prostate localization with TPUS and computed tomography (CT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We completed 2 sequential evaluations of TPUS. The feasibility study included 15 men with localized prostate cancer and tested if TPUS adequately imaged the prostate. Image qualities of the prostate and adjacent normal structures were measured. The subsequent study included 17 men who at the time of initial radiation treatment planning and in 3 subsequent sessions had CT and TPUS imaging performed and compared. RESULTS: Feasibility of TPUS was confirmed in the first trial. After expected hardware and software modifications were completed, TPUS provided near complete edge definition of the prostate in the final 5 patients in the feasibility trial. The second study allowed for the comparison of 30 image sets. The differences between TPUS and CT in each direction (mean + standard deviation) were found to be 0.06 ± 2.86 mm (anteroposterior), 0.49 ± 3.49 mm (superoinferior), and 0.63 ± 3.27 mm (left-right), with no significant difference between the 2 modalities (all P > .32). The Euclidean distance variance using the 2 techniques was 5.25 ± 1.79 mm, which was significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: TPUS provides good imaging of the prostate gland. We noted excellent correlation in gland localization when TPUS is compared with CT scans when comparing routine 3-dimensional positional data. Euclidean distance variation suggests the potential that summation of small errors may in fact lead to significant differences in actual gland positional certainty. The reported difference is within the range of standard planning target volume expansion however requires additional evaluation.
PURPOSE: Transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) allows for continuous imaging of the prostate gland, but the accuracy of TPUS has not been rigorously studied. We determined the feasibility of prostate imaging with TPUS and subsequently compared prostate localization with TPUS and computed tomography (CT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We completed 2 sequential evaluations of TPUS. The feasibility study included 15 men with localized prostate cancer and tested if TPUS adequately imaged the prostate. Image qualities of the prostate and adjacent normal structures were measured. The subsequent study included 17 men who at the time of initial radiation treatment planning and in 3 subsequent sessions had CT and TPUS imaging performed and compared. RESULTS: Feasibility of TPUS was confirmed in the first trial. After expected hardware and software modifications were completed, TPUS provided near complete edge definition of the prostate in the final 5 patients in the feasibility trial. The second study allowed for the comparison of 30 image sets. The differences between TPUS and CT in each direction (mean + standard deviation) were found to be 0.06 ± 2.86 mm (anteroposterior), 0.49 ± 3.49 mm (superoinferior), and 0.63 ± 3.27 mm (left-right), with no significant difference between the 2 modalities (all P > .32). The Euclidean distance variance using the 2 techniques was 5.25 ± 1.79 mm, which was significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: TPUS provides good imaging of the prostate gland. We noted excellent correlation in gland localization when TPUS is compared with CT scans when comparing routine 3-dimensional positional data. Euclidean distance variation suggests the potential that summation of small errors may in fact lead to significant differences in actual gland positional certainty. The reported difference is within the range of standard planning target volume expansion however requires additional evaluation.
Authors: Bin Han; Mohammad Najafi; David T Cooper; Martin Lachaine; Rie von Eyben; Steven Hancock; Dimitre Hristov Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Saskia M Camps; Davide Fontanarosa; Peter H N de With; Frank Verhaegen; Ben G L Vanneste Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 3.411