Initial Results for Patient Setup Verification Using Transperineal Ultrasound and Cone Beam CT in External Beam Radiation Therapy of Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Radiat Oncol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Oncology
Radiology

Date 2016 Nov 10

PMID 27825386

Citations 9

Authors

Anne Richter

Bulent Polat

Ingulf Lawrenz

Stefan Weick

Otto Sauer

Michael Flentje

Frederick Mantel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

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.

Synthetic CT generation based on CBCT using improved vision transformer CycleGAN.

Hu Y, Zhou H, Cao N, Li C, Hu C Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):11455.

PMID: 38769329 PMC: 11106312. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61492-7.

Factors affecting accuracy and precision in ultrasound guided radiotherapy.

Grimwood A, Thomas K, Kember S, Aldis G, Lawes R, Brigden B Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 18:68-77.

PMID: 34258411 PMC: 8254201. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2021.05.003.

An ultrasound based platform for image-guided radiotherapy in canine bladder cancer patients.

Sick J, Rancilio N, Fulkerson C, Plantenga J, Knapp D, Stantz K Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 12:10-16.

PMID: 33458289 PMC: 7807639. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.10.003.

Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: updated long-term outcome and toxicity analysis.

Tamihardja J, Schortmann M, Lawrenz I, Weick S, Bratengeier K, Flentje M Strahlenther Onkol. 2020; 197(2):124-132.

PMID: 32833036 PMC: 7840645. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-020-01678-w.

References

Guckenberger M, Ok S, Polat B, Sweeney R, Flentje M . Toxicity after intensity-modulated, image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 2010; 186(10):535-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-010-2144-z. View

Schwaab J, Prall M, Sarti C, Kaderka R, Bert C, Kurz C . Ultrasound tracking for intra-fractional motion compensation in radiation therapy. Phys Med. 2014; 30(5):578-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.03.003. 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

Goyal S, Kataria T . Image guidance in radiation therapy: techniques and applications. Radiol Res Pract. 2015; 2014:705604. PMC: 4281403. DOI: 10.1155/2014/705604. View

Raaymakers B, Lagendijk J, Overweg J, Kok J, Raaijmakers A, Kerkhof E . Integrating a 1.5 T MRI scanner with a 6 MV accelerator: proof of concept. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54(12):N229-37. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/12/N01. View

van der Meer S, Bloemen-van Gurp E, Hermans J, Voncken R, Heuvelmans D, Gubbels C . Critical assessment of intramodality 3D ultrasound imaging for prostate IGRT compared to fiducial markers. Med Phys. 2013; 40(7):071707. DOI: 10.1118/1.4808359. View

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Foster R, Solberg T, Li H, Kerkhoff A, Enke C, Willoughby T . Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010; 11(1):2924. PMC: 5719783. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924. View

Fallone B, Murray B, Rathee S, Stanescu T, Steciw S, Vidakovic S . First MR images obtained during megavoltage photon irradiation from a prototype integrated linac-MR system. Med Phys. 2009; 36(6):2084-8. DOI: 10.1118/1.3125662. View

10.

Fontanarosa D, van der Meer S, Bamber J, Harris E, OShea T, Verhaegen F . Review of ultrasound image guidance in external beam radiotherapy: I. Treatment planning and inter-fraction motion management. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(3):R77-114. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/3/R77. View

11.

Guckenberger M, Meyer J, Wilbert J, Baier K, Sauer O, Flentje M . Precision of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) in six degrees of freedom and limitations in clinical practice. Strahlenther Onkol. 2007; 183(6):307-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-007-1695-0. View

12.

Boda-Heggemann J, Lohr F, Wenz F, Flentje M, Guckenberger M . kV cone-beam CT-based IGRT: a clinical review. Strahlenther Onkol. 2011; 187(5):284-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-011-2236-4. View

13.

Mayyas E, Chetty I, Chetvertkov M, Wen N, Neicu T, Nurushev T . Evaluation of multiple image-based modalities for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate carcinoma: a prospective study. Med Phys. 2013; 40(4):041707. DOI: 10.1118/1.4794502. View

14.

Nabavizadeh N, Elliott D, Chen Y, Kusano A, Mitin T, Thomas Jr C . Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) Practice Patterns and IGRT's Impact on Workflow and Treatment Planning: Results From a National Survey of American Society for Radiation Oncology Members. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 94(4):850-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.035. View

15.

Kupelian P, Langen K, Willoughby T, Zeidan O, Meeks S . Image-guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treating a moving target. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007; 18(1):58-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2007.09.008. View

16.

Li M, Ballhausen H, Hegemann N, Ganswindt U, Manapov F, Tritschler S . A comparative assessment of prostate positioning guided by three-dimensional ultrasound and cone beam CT. Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10:82. PMC: 4465303. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-015-0380-1. View

17.

Brahme A, Nyman P, Skatt B . 4D laser camera for accurate patient positioning, collision avoidance, image fusion and adaptive approaches during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Med Phys. 2008; 35(5):1670-81. DOI: 10.1118/1.2889720. View

18.

Mah D, Freedman G, Milestone B, Hanlon A, Palacio E, Richardson T . Measurement of intrafractional prostate motion using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 54(2):568-75. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03008-0. View

19.

Colvill E, Poulsen P, Booth J, OBrien R, Ng J, Keall P . DMLC tracking and gating can improve dose coverage for prostate VMAT. Med Phys. 2014; 41(9):091705. DOI: 10.1118/1.4892605. View

20.

Robinson D, Liu D, Steciw S, Field C, Daly H, Saibishkumar E . An evaluation of the Clarity 3D ultrasound system for prostate localization. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012; 13(4):3753. PMC: 5716521. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3753. View