The search result changed since you submitted your search request. Documents might be displayed in a different sort order.
  • search hit 3 of 15
Back to Result List

Initial results for patient setup verification using transperineal ultrasound and cone beam CT in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer

Please always quote using this URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147677
  • 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: AEvaluation 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.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author: Anne Richter, Bülent Polat, Ingulf Lawrenz, Stefan Weick, Otto Sauer, Michael Flentje, Frederick Mantel
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147677
Document Type:Journal article
Faculties:Medizinische Fakultät / Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie
Language:English
Parent Title (English):Radiation Oncology
Year of Completion:2016
Volume:11
Issue:147
Source:Radiation Oncology (2016) 11:147 DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0722-7
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0722-7
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Tag:IGRT; cone beam CT; prostate cancer; setup verification; transperineal ultrasound
Release Date:2017/05/17
Collections:Open-Access-Publikationsfonds / Förderzeitraum 2016
Licence (German):License LogoCC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung