Comparison of transperineal ultrasound image guidance technique to transabdominal technique for prostate radiation therapy
| Autor: | Martin Szegedi, A Paxton, Bill J. Salter, Vikren Sarkar, Christine Boehm, Shane Lloyd, Prema Rassiah-Szegedi, Kristine E. Kokeny, Hui Zhao, Jonathan D. Tward, Frances Su |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Male
business.industry Radiotherapy Planning Computer-Assisted medicine.medical_treatment Ultrasound Prostatic Neoplasms General Medicine Sagittal plane 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging Data set Radiation therapy Motion 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine.anatomical_structure Match moving Prostate 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis medicine Humans Transperineal ultrasound Nuclear medicine business Image guidance Ultrasonography |
| Zdroj: | Medical Physics. 47:6113-6121 |
| ISSN: | 2473-4209 0094-2405 |
| Popis: | Introduction Ultrasound (US) guidance of the prostate has long been conducted using a transabdominal (TA) approach. More recently, a transperineal (TP) approach has been made available for image guidance. Our aim was to determine if both methods produced similar alignments within the same patients. Materials and methods We utilized two clinical US image guidance (IG) systems (Elekta Clarity and Best BAT). The B-mode Acquisition and Targeting USIG system is a bi-planar, so-called 2.5D USIG system, that is acquired TA. Clarity is a 3D US system that generates a volumetric 3D US data set and US-derived IG contours that are coregistered to the planning CT images. The probe is oriented in the sagittal plane against the perineum (TP). After positioning the patient for treatment using the TP USIG, we maintained the position defined by Clarity tracking and then acquired a TA-based USIG. The two US-based methods of localizing the prostate (TA vs TP) were compared via Bland-Altman (BA) statistical analysis to determine if there was alignment agreement between methods. Results The BA test for all 101 patients, 2093 fractions resulted in 95% confidence intervals (upper and lower limits of the BA test) of 0.6 mm in LR, 0.9 mm in AP and 1.0 mm in SI. The bias between the two systems was calculated as 0.03, 0.02, and 0.03 mm in LR, AP, and SI. Conclusions Both systems resulted in statistically equivalent targeting positions for the prostate. Because of the unique intrafraction, real-time motion tracking capability of the TP system, this solution represents a unique extension to the previously reported clinical benefits of a TA approach by providing assurance of the prostate remaining in the treatment field during beam-on. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text