A Comparative Assessment of Prostate Positioning Guided by Three-dimensional Ultrasound and Cone Beam CT

Overview

Journal Radiat Oncol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Oncology
Radiology

Date 2015 Apr 19

PMID 25890013

Citations 19

Authors

Minglun Li

Hendrik Ballhausen

Nina-Sophie Hegemann

Ute Ganswindt

Farkhad Manapov

Stefan Tritschler

Alexander Roosen

Christian Gratzke

Michael Reiner

Claus Belka

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of the Elekta Clarity™ three-dimensional ultrasound system (3DUS) was assessed for prostate positioning and compared to seed- and bone-based positioning in kilo-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during a definitive radiotherapy.

Methods: The prostate positioning of 6 patients, with fiducial markers implanted into the prostate, was controlled by 3DUS and CBCT. In total, 78 ultrasound scans were performed trans-abdominally and compared to bone-matches and seed-matches in CBCT scans. Setup errors detected by the different modalities were compared. Systematic and random errors were analysed, and optimal setup margins were calculated.

Results: The discrepancy between 3DUS and seed-match in CBCT was -0.2 ± 2.7 mm laterally, -1.9 ± 2.3 mm longitudinally and 0.0 ± 3.0 mm vertically and significant only in longitudinal direction. Using seed-match as reference, systematic errors of 3DUS were 1.3 mm laterally, 0.8 mm longitudinally and 1.4 mm vertically, and random errors were 2.5 mm laterally, 2.3 mm longitudinally, and 2.7 mm vertically. No significant difference could be detected for 3DUS in comparison to bone-match in CBCT.

Conclusions: 3DUS is feasible for image guidance for patients with prostate cancer and appears comparable to CBCT based image guidance in the retrospective study. While 3DUS offers some distinct advantages such as no need of invasive fiducial implantation and avoidance of extra radiation, its disadvantages include the operator dependence of the technique and dependence on sufficient bladder filling. Further study of 3DUS for image guidance in a large patient cohort is warranted.

Citing Articles

Deep learning based ultra-low dose fan-beam computed tomography image enhancement algorithm: Feasibility study in image quality for radiotherapy.

Jiang H, Qin S, Jia L, Wei Z, Xiong W, Xu W J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 25(12):e14560.

PMID: 39540681 PMC: 11633815. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14560.

Physician reported toxicities and patient reported quality of life of transperineal ultrasound-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Ma J, Rogowski P, Trapp C, Manapov F, Xu B, Buchner A Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2024; 49:100868.

PMID: 39381629 PMC: 11459703. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100868.

Optical Surface Management System and BladderScan for Patient Setup During Radiotherapy of Postoperative Prostate Cancer.

Chen H, Liu Y, Qin S, Gan G Biomed Res Int. 2024; 2024:3573796.

PMID: 39263420 PMC: 11390218. DOI: 10.1155/2024/3573796.

Deep learning-based low-dose CT for adaptive radiotherapy of abdominal and pelvic tumors.

Gong W, Yao Y, Ni J, Jiang H, Jia L, Xiong W Front Oncol. 2022; 12:968537.

PMID: 36059630 PMC: 9436420. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.968537.

Dosimetric Impact of Inter-Fraction Anatomical Changes in Carbon Ion Boost Treatment for High-Risk Prostate Cancer (AIRC IG 14300).

Russo S, Ricotti R, Molinelli S, Patti F, Barcellini A, Mastella E Front Oncol. 2021; 11:740661.

PMID: 34650922 PMC: 8506150. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.740661.

References

Ali A, Dirkx M, Cools R, Heijmen B . Accurate IMRT fluence verification for prostate cancer patients using 'in-vivo' measured EPID images and in-room acquired kilovoltage cone-beam CT scans. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:211. PMC: 3851603. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-211. View

Wu Q, Li T, Yuan L, Yin F, Lee W . Single institution's dosimetry and IGRT analysis of prostate SBRT. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:215. PMC: 3852330. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-215. View

van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C, Lebesque J . The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 47(4):1121-35. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00518-6. View

Pollack A, Zagars G, Starkschall G, Antolak J, Lee J, Huang E . Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 53(5):1097-105. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02829-8. View

Chandra A, Dong L, Huang E, Kuban D, ONeill L, Rosen I . Experience of ultrasound-based daily prostate localization. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 56(2):436-47. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)04612-6. View

Aubry J, Beaulieu L, Girouard L, Aubin S, Tremblay D, Laverdiere J . Measurements of intrafraction motion and interfraction and intrafraction rotation of prostate by three-dimensional analysis of daily portal imaging with radiopaque markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 60(1):30-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.045. View

Crook J, Raymond Y, Salhani D, Yang H, Esche B . Prostate motion during standard radiotherapy as assessed by fiducial markers. Radiother Oncol. 1995; 37(1):35-42. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8140(95)01613-l. View

Ghilezan M, Jaffray D, Siewerdsen J, Van Herk M, Shetty A, Sharpe M . Prostate gland motion assessed with cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 62(2):406-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.017. View

Kuban D, Dong L, Cheung R, Strom E, de Crevoisier R . Ultrasound-based localization. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2005; 15(3):180-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2005.01.009. View

10.

Cella L, DAvino V, Liuzzi R, Conson M, Doria F, Faiella A . Multivariate normal tissue complication probability modeling of gastrointestinal toxicity after external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:221. PMC: 3852304. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-221. View

11.

Tree A, Jones C, Sohaib A, Khoo V, van As N . Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost: which is the best planning method?. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:228. PMC: 3853231. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-228. View

12.

Gadia R, Leite E, Gabrielli F, Marta G, Arruda F, Abreu C . Outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone with 1 cm planning target volume posterior margin for localized prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:285. PMC: 3996204. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-285. View

13.

Dearnaley D, Jovic G, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Cowan R, Graham J . Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(4):464-73. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70040-3. View

14.

Nyholm T, Jonsson J, Soderstrom K, Bergstrom P, Carlberg A, Frykholm G . Variability in prostate and seminal vesicle delineations defined on magnetic resonance images, a multi-observer, -center and -sequence study. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:126. PMC: 3680182. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-126. View

15.

Alongi F, Cozzi L, Arcangeli S, Iftode C, Comito T, Villa E . Linac based SBRT for prostate cancer in 5 fractions with VMAT and flattening filter free beams: preliminary report of a phase II study. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:171. PMC: 3718706. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-171. View

16.

Ballhausen H, Hieber S, Li M, Belka C, Reiner M . Technical Note: Millimeter precision in ultrasound based patient positioning: experimental quantification of inherent technical limitations. Med Phys. 2014; 41(8):081718. DOI: 10.1118/1.4890079. View

17.

Fiandra C, Guarneri A, Munoz F, Moretto F, Filippi A, Levis M . Impact of the observers' experience on daily prostate localization accuracy in ultrasound-based IGRT with the Clarity platform. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(4):4795. PMC: 5875522. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4795. View

18.

Ballhausen H, Li M, Hegemann N, Ganswindt U, Belka C . Intra-fraction motion of the prostate is a random walk. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 60(2):549-63. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/2/549. View

19.

Ballhausen H, Hieber S, Li M, Parodi K, Belka C, Reiner M . Linearity of patient positioning detection : a phantom study of skin markers, cone beam computed tomography, and 3D ultrasound. Strahlenther Onkol. 2015; 191(5):442-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-015-0811-9. View

20.

Letourneau D, Martinez A, Lockman D, Yan D, Vargas C, Ivaldi G . Assessment of residual error for online cone-beam CT-guided treatment of prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 62(4):1239-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.035. View