Comparison of ultrasound and implanted seed marker prostate localization methods: Implications for image-guided radiotherapy

被引:116
|
作者
Scarbrough, TJ
Golden, NM
Ting, JY
Fuller, CD
Wong, A
Kupelian, PA
Thomas, CR
机构
[1] MIMA Canc Ctr, Melbourne, FL 32901 USA
[2] Univ Texas, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, San Antonio, TX USA
[3] MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Orlando, FL USA
[4] Oregon Hlth Sci Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol, Portland, OR 97201 USA
关键词
ultrasound; image-guided radiotherapy; external-beam radiotherapy; prostate cancer; seed marker;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.01.008
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To analyze two methods of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: The prostate was localized by ultrasound (US) in lateral (left/right), vertical (anteroposterior), and longitudinal (superior/inferior) dimensions and then by fiducial seed marker (SM) kV X-ray. Assuming initial setup to skin marks as the origin, the mean suggested shifts (for all dimensions) were hypothesized to be similar and within 1 mm of the origin. The three-dimensional distance discrepancy between suggested SM and US shift points was calculated. We hypothesized a mean discrepancy > 5 mm as clinically significant. Results: From 40 patients, 1019 US/SM measurements were obtained. Lateral, vertical, and longitudinal dimensional comparisons reveal statistically significant differences in mean shifts (p < 0.0001 for all). US dimensional shifts reveal significantly greater variability. The US three-dimensional vector is greater and more variable than the SM vector (p < 0.0001). The mean US/SM three-dimensional distance discrepancy is 8.8 mm (significantly > 5 mm, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Ultrasound and SM methods suggest different shifts. US data reveal greater systematic/random error vs. SM data. The US data suggest larger PTV expansion margins (similar to 9 mm) are necessary for US IGRT vs. SM IGRT (similar to 3 mm). The hypotheses that US and SM methods suggest similar shifts and that the mean US/SM three-dimensional distance discrepancy is <= 5 ram are rejected. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:378 / 387
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Image guided radiotherapy in prostate localization: A comparison of ultrasound modalities to implanted seed markers and assessment of intrafractional prostate motion
    Weyers, B.
    Wu, C.
    Goddu, S.
    Michalski, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (06) : 2375 - 2375
  • [2] Evaluation of ultrasound-based prostate localization for image-guided radiotherapy
    Langen, KM
    Pouliot, J
    Anezinos, C
    Aubin, M
    Gottschalk, AR
    Hsu, IC
    Lowther, D
    Liu, YM
    Shinohara, K
    Verhey, LJ
    Weinberg, V
    Roach, M
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2003, 57 (03): : 635 - 644
  • [3] Image-guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer: Concepts and implications
    Crehange, G.
    Martin, E.
    Supiot, S.
    Chapet, O.
    Mazoyer, F.
    Naudy, S.
    Maingon, P.
    [J]. CANCER RADIOTHERAPIE, 2012, 16 (5-6): : 430 - 438
  • [4] Comparison of Image-guided Radiotherapy Technologies for Prostate Cancer
    Das, Satya
    Liu, Tian
    Jani, Ashesh B.
    Rossi, Peter
    Shelton, Joseph
    Shi, Zheng
    Khan, Mohammad K.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2014, 37 (06): : 616 - 623
  • [5] CALCIFICATIONS ARE POTENTIAL SURROGATES FOR PROSTATE LOCALIZATION IN IMAGE-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY
    Zeng, Grace G.
    McGowan, Tom S.
    Larsen, Tessa M.
    Brue, Lisa M.
    Moran, Natasha K.
    Tsao, Jonathan R.
    MacPherson, Miller S.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 72 (04): : 963 - 966
  • [6] Automatic localization of the prostate for on-line image-guided radiotherapy
    Smitsmans, MHP
    Wolthaus, JWH
    Artignan, X
    De Bois, J
    Jaffray, DA
    Lebesque, JV
    Van Herk, M
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2003, 68 : S23 - S23
  • [7] Impact of probe pressure variability on prostate localization for ultrasound-based image-guided radiotherapy
    Fargier-Voiron, Marie
    Presles, Benoit
    Pommier, Pascal
    Rit, Simon
    Munoz, Alexandre
    Liebgott, Herve
    Sarrut, David
    Biston, Marie-Claude
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 (01) : 132 - 137
  • [8] Impact of probe pressure variability on prostate localization for ultrasound-based image-guided radiotherapy
    Fargier-Voiron, M.
    Presles, B.
    Pommier, P.
    Rit, S.
    Munoz, A.
    Liebgott, H.
    Sarrut, D.
    Biston, M. C.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 : S141 - S142
  • [9] Comparison of different image-guided setups for radiotherapy of prostate cancer
    Feng, Y.
    Yi, B.
    Patel, S.
    Kwok, Y.
    Yu, C.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2028 - 2028
  • [10] Comparison of localization performance with implanted fiducial markers and cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate
    Moseley, Douglas J.
    White, Elizabeth A.
    Wiltshire, Kirsty L.
    Rosewall, Tara
    Sharpe, Michael B.
    Siewerdsen, Jeffrey H.
    Bissonnette, Jean-Pierre
    Gospodarowicz, Mary
    Warde, Padraig
    Catton, Charles N.
    Jaffray, David A.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 67 (03): : 942 - 953