» Articles » PMID: 23835391

Comparison of Low-dose, Half-rotation, Cone-beam CT with Electronic Portal Imaging Device for Registration of Fiducial Markers During Prostate Radiotherapy

Overview
Date 2013 Jul 10
PMID 23835391
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study evaluated the agreement of fiducial marker localization between two modalities--an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)--using a low-dose, half-rotation scanning protocol. Twenty-five prostate cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were enrolled. Before each daily treatment, EPID and half-rotation CBCT images were acquired. Translational shifts were computed for each modality and two marker-matching algorithms, seed-chamfer and grey-value, were performed for each set of CBCT images. The localization offsets, and systematic and random errors from both modalities were computed. Localization performances for both modalities were compared using Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) analysis, Deming regression analysis, and Cohen's kappa inter-rater analysis. The differences in the systematic and random errors between the modalities were within 0.2 mm in all directions. The LoA analysis revealed a 95% agreement limit of the modalities of 2 to 3.5 mm in any given translational direction. Deming regression analysis demonstrated that constant biases existed in the shifts computed by the modalities in the superior-inferior (SI) direction, but no significant proportional biases were identified in any direction. Cohen's kappa analysis showed good agreement between the modalities in prescribing translational corrections of the couch at 3 and 5 mm action levels. Images obtained from EPID and half-rotation CBCT showed acceptable agreement for registration of fiducial markers. The seed-chamfer algorithm for tracking of fiducial markers in CBCT datasets yielded better agreement than the grey-value matching algorithm with EPID-based registration.

Citing Articles

Positioning error and expanding margins of planning target volume with kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Wang G, Wang W, Liu Y, Dong H, Hu Y Onco Targets Ther. 2018; 11:1981-1988.

PMID: 29670373 PMC: 5898597. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S152915.


The Mobius AIRO mobile CT for image-guided proton therapy: Characterization & commissioning.

Oliver J, Zeidan O, Meeks S, Shah A, Pukala J, Kelly P J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18(3):130-136.

PMID: 28436155 PMC: 5689854. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12084.

References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17(4):571-82. DOI: 10.1080/10543400701329422. View

2.
Litzenberg D, Dawson L, Sandler H, Sanda M, McShan D, Ten Haken R . Daily prostate targeting using implanted radiopaque markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 52(3):699-703. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02654-2. View

3.
Sykes J, Amer A, Czajka J, Moore C . A feasibility study for image guided radiotherapy using low dose, high speed, cone beam X-ray volumetric imaging. Radiother Oncol. 2005; 77(1):45-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2005.05.005. View

4.
Cornbleet P, GOCHMAN N . Incorrect least-squares regression coefficients in method-comparison analysis. Clin Chem. 1979; 25(3):432-8. View

5.
Owen R, Foroudi F, Kron T, Milner A, Cox J, Cramb J . A comparison of in-room computerized tomography options for detection of fiducial markers in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 77(4):1248-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.050. View