首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Ultrasound versus Cone-beam CT image-guided radiotherapy for prostate and post-prostatectomy pretreatment localization
Affiliation:1. CREATIS, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France;2. CNRS UMR5220, Lyon, France;3. Inserm U1044, Lyon, France;4. INSA-Lyon, Lyon, France;5. Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France;6. Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France;7. Léon Bérard Cancer Center, University of Lyon, F-69373 Lyon, France;1. State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, Beihang University, China;2. Thomson Reuters, Beijing, China;3. Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, USA;1. Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia;2. Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;3. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract:PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of an intra-modality trans-abdominal ultrasound (TA-US) device against soft-tissue based Cone-Beam Computed tomography (CBCT) registration for prostate and post-prostatectomy pre-treatment positioning.MethodsThe differences between CBCT and US shifts were calculated on 25 prostate cancer patients (cohort A) and 11 post-prostatectomy patients (cohort B), resulting in 284 and 106 paired shifts for cohorts A and B, respectively. As a second step, a corrective method was applied to the US registration results to decrease the systematic shifts observed between TA-US and CBCT results. This method consisted of subtracting the mean difference obtained between US and CBCT registration results during the first 3 sessions from the US registration results of the subsequent sessions. Inter-operator registration variability (IOV) was also investigated for both modalities.ResultsAfter initial review, about 20% of the US images were excluded because of insufficient quality. The average differences between US and CBCT were: 2.8 ± 4.1 mm, −0.9 ± 4.2 mm, 0.4 ± 3.4 mm for cohort A and 1.3 ± 5.0 mm, −2.3 ± 4.6 mm, 0.5 ± 2.9 mm for cohort B, in the anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI) and lateral (LR) directions, respectively. After applying the corrective method, only the differences in the AP direction remained significant (p < 0.05). The IOV values were between 0.6–2.0 mm and 2.1–3.5 mm for the CBCT and TA-US modalities, respectively.ConclusionsBased on the obtained results and on the image quality, the TA-US imaging modality is not safely interchangeable with CBCT for pre-treatment repositioning. Treatment margins adaptation based on the correction of the systematic shifts should be considered.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号