Background: Evaluation of set up error detection by a transperineal ultrasound in comparison with a cone beam CT (CBCT) based system in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer.
Methods: Setup verification was performed with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and CBCT for 10 patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. In total, 150 ultrasound and CBCT scans were acquired in rapid succession and analyzed for setup errors. The deviation between setup errors of the two modalities was evaluated separately for each dimension.
Results: A moderate correlation in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction was observed comparing the setup errors. Mean differences between TPUS and CBCT were (-2.7 ± 2.3) mm, (3.0 ± 2.4) mm and (3.2 ± 2.7) mm in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction, respectively. The mean Euclidean difference between TPUS and CBCT was (6.0 ± 3.1) mm. Differences up to 19.2 mm were observed between the two imaging modalities. Discrepancies between TPUS and CBCT of at least 5 mm occurred in 58 % of monitored treatment sessions.
Conclusion: Setup differences between TPUS and CBCT are 6 mm on average. Although the correlation of the setup errors determined by the two different image modalities is rather week, the combination of setup verification by CBCT and intrafraction motion monitoring by TPUS imaging can use the benefits of both imaging modalities.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101794 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0722-7 | DOI Listing |
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol
January 2025
Department of Radiation Oncology, Townsville University Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Introduction: Prostate motion during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is common and typically managed using fiducial markers and cone beam CT (CBCT) scans for inter-fractional motion correction. However, real-time intra-fractional motion management is less commonly implemented. This study evaluated the extent of intra-fractional prostate motion using transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and examined the impact of treatment time on prostate motion.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFRadiat Oncol J
September 2021
Department of Clinical Oncology, Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong.
Purpose: Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is central to the safe and effective delivery of ultrahypofractionated (UF) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer. However, the optimal IGRT modality remains uncertain. We aim to study the safety of performing UF-SBRT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and real-time transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) monitoring.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol
March 2018
Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore 169610, Singapore.
Background And Purpose: Inconsistent bladder and rectal volumes have been associated with motion uncertainties during prostate radiotherapy. This study investigates the impact of these volumes to determine the optimal bladder volume.
Materials And Methods: 60 patients from two Asian hospitals were recruited prospectively.
Radiat Oncol
November 2016
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wuerzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 11, 97080, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Background: Evaluation of set up error detection by a transperineal ultrasound in comparison with a cone beam CT (CBCT) based system in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer.
Methods: Setup verification was performed with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and CBCT for 10 patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. In total, 150 ultrasound and CBCT scans were acquired in rapid succession and analyzed for setup errors.
Phys Med
March 2016
CREATIS, INSA, Université de Lyon, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1044, Lyon F-69622, France; Léon Bérard Cancer Center, University of Lyon, Lyon F-69373, France. Electronic address:
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate a new system based on transperineal ultrasound (TP-US) acquisitions for prostate and post-prostatectomy pre-treatment positioning by comparing this device to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Methods: The differences between CBCT/CT and TP-US/TP-US registrations were analyzed on 427 and 453 sessions for 13 prostate and 14 post-prostatectomy patients, respectively. The inter-operator variability (IOV) of the registration process, and the impact and variability of the probe pressure were also evaluated.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!