OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of a transperineal three-dimensional ultrasound system (3DUS) was assessed for prostate positioning and compared to fiducial- and bone-based positioning in kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) during definitive radiotherapy of prostate cancer. METHODS: Each of the 7 patients had three fiducial markers implanted into the prostate before treatment. Prostate positioning was simultaneously measured by 3DUS and CBCT before each fraction. In total, 177 pairs of 3DUS and CBCT scans were collected. Bone-match and seed-match were performed for each CBCT. Using seed-match as a reference, the accuracy of 3DUS and bone-match was evaluated. Systematic and random errors as well as optimal setup margins were calculated for 3DUS and bone-match. RESULTS: The discrepancy between 3DUS and seed-match in CBCT (average ± standard deviation) was 0.0 ± 1.7 mm laterally, 0.2 ± 2.0 mm longitudinally, and 0.3 ± 1.7 mm vertically. Using seed-match as a reference, systematic errors for 3DUS were 1.2 mm, 1.1 mm, and 0.9 mm; and random errors were 1.4 mm, 1.8 mm, and 1.6 mm, on lateral, longitudinal, and vertical axes, respectively. By analogy, the difference of bone-match to seed-match was 0.1 ± 1.1 mm laterally, 1.3 ± 3.8 mm longitudinally, and 1.3 ± 4.5 mm vertically. Systematic errors were 0.5 mm, 2.2 mm, and 2.6 mm; and random errors were 1.0 mm, 3.1 mm, and 3.9 mm on lateral, longitudinal, and vertical axes, respectively. The accuracy of 3DUS was significantly higher than that of bone-match on longitudinal and vertical axes, but not on the lateral axis. CONCLUSION: Image-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer based on transperineal 3DUS was feasible, with overall small discrepancy to seed-match in CBCT in this retrospective study. Compared to bone-match, transperineal 3DUS achieved higher accuracy on longitudinal and vertical axes.
OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of a transperineal three-dimensional ultrasound system (3DUS) was assessed for prostate positioning and compared to fiducial- and bone-based positioning in kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) during definitive radiotherapy of prostate cancer. METHODS: Each of the 7 patients had three fiducial markers implanted into the prostate before treatment. Prostate positioning was simultaneously measured by 3DUS and CBCT before each fraction. In total, 177 pairs of 3DUS and CBCT scans were collected. Bone-match and seed-match were performed for each CBCT. Using seed-match as a reference, the accuracy of 3DUS and bone-match was evaluated. Systematic and random errors as well as optimal setup margins were calculated for 3DUS and bone-match. RESULTS: The discrepancy between 3DUS and seed-match in CBCT (average ± standard deviation) was 0.0 ± 1.7 mm laterally, 0.2 ± 2.0 mm longitudinally, and 0.3 ± 1.7 mm vertically. Using seed-match as a reference, systematic errors for 3DUS were 1.2 mm, 1.1 mm, and 0.9 mm; and random errors were 1.4 mm, 1.8 mm, and 1.6 mm, on lateral, longitudinal, and vertical axes, respectively. By analogy, the difference of bone-match to seed-match was 0.1 ± 1.1 mm laterally, 1.3 ± 3.8 mm longitudinally, and 1.3 ± 4.5 mm vertically. Systematic errors were 0.5 mm, 2.2 mm, and 2.6 mm; and random errors were 1.0 mm, 3.1 mm, and 3.9 mm on lateral, longitudinal, and vertical axes, respectively. The accuracy of 3DUS was significantly higher than that of bone-match on longitudinal and vertical axes, but not on the lateral axis. CONCLUSION: Image-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer based on transperineal 3DUS was feasible, with overall small discrepancy to seed-match in CBCT in this retrospective study. Compared to bone-match, transperineal 3DUS achieved higher accuracy on longitudinal and vertical axes.
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Georges Sumo; Margaret Bidmead; David Bloomfield; Catharine Clark; Annie Gao; Shama Hassan; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Vincent Khoo; Peter Kirkbride; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Martin Russell; Christopher Scrase; Chris South; John Staffurth; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Anurag Chandra; Lei Dong; Eugene Huang; Deborah A Kuban; Laura O'Neill; Isaac Rosen; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-06-01 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: Michel J Ghilezan; David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Marcel Van Herk; Anil Shetty; Michael B Sharpe; Syed Zafar Jafri; Frank A Vicini; Richard C Matter; Donald S Brabbins; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel Létourneau; Alvaro A Martinez; David Lockman; Di Yan; Carlos Vargas; Giovanni Ivaldi; John Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David Skarsgard; Pat Cadman; Ali El-Gayed; Robert Pearcey; Patricia Tai; Nadeem Pervez; Jackson Wu Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Gordana Jovic; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Richard A Cowan; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John H L Matthews; Jeremy L Millar; Claire Murphy; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Sara Elakshar; James Man Git Tsui; Michael Jonathan Kucharczyk; Nada Tomic; Ziad Simon Fawaz; Boris Bahoric; Joseph Papayanatos; Ahmad Chaddad; Tamim Niazi Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-01
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