SU‐FF‐J‐37: Comparison Between CT‐Based and Ultrasound‐Based Localization for Prostate Patients

K. Paskalev, S. Feigenberg, S. Mcneeley, E. Horwitz, R. Price, L. Wang, A. Konski, C. ma, Alan Pollack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Prostate cancer is often treated with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) that provides very steep dose fall‐off outside of the target volume and therefore requires precise alignment. In this report, we compare ultrasound (U/S) and CT localization, and evaluate the uncertainties of the two modalities. Method and Materials: A total of 19 prostate patients (275 alignments) were included in the study. The prostate was localized with the BAT U/S system (Nomos, Cranberry, PA). CT scans were performed with the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails system (Siemens, Concord, CA). The two alignment techniques were identical: the simulation contours of the prostate, proximal seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum were aligned with a pre‐treatment image. The random uncertainty of the CT system was estimated based on intra‐user variability, and a simple mathematical model of the motion of radio‐opaque markers. Then the random error of the ultrasound alone was calculated. Results: The systematic differences between (U/S) and CT alignments were (in mm): 0.3 (lateral), 0.4 (AP) and 0.3 (longitudinal). The random differences between the two modalities (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 2.2 (lateral), 2.2 (AP) and 2.4 (longitudinal). The estimated ranges of random uncertainties of the CT alignments (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 0.9 to 1.2 (lateral), 0.7 to 1 (AP), and 1.2 to 1.5 (longitudinal). Based on these results, the calculated ranges of random uncertainties of the U/S alignments were (in mm): 1.8 to 2.0 (lateral), 2.0 to 2.1 (AP), and 1.9 to 2.1 (longitudinal). Conclusion: There was a strong correlation between the extent of prostate inter‐fraction alignments using ultrasound and CT. The localization of the prostate had a total uncertainty (two standard deviations) of 2 to 3 mm when using the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails and around 4 mm when using the BAT system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2028
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Uncertainty
Prostate
Vaccinium macrocarpon
Seminal Vesicles
Transcription Factor AP-1
Rectum
Prostatic Neoplasms
Urinary Bladder
Theoretical Models
Radiotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐J‐37 : Comparison Between CT‐Based and Ultrasound‐Based Localization for Prostate Patients. / Paskalev, K.; Feigenberg, S.; Mcneeley, S.; Horwitz, E.; Price, R.; Wang, L.; Konski, A.; ma, C.; Pollack, Alan.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2006, p. 2028.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paskalev, K, Feigenberg, S, Mcneeley, S, Horwitz, E, Price, R, Wang, L, Konski, A, ma, C & Pollack, A 2006, 'SU‐FF‐J‐37: Comparison Between CT‐Based and Ultrasound‐Based Localization for Prostate Patients', Medical Physics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 2028. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2240815
Paskalev, K. ; Feigenberg, S. ; Mcneeley, S. ; Horwitz, E. ; Price, R. ; Wang, L. ; Konski, A. ; ma, C. ; Pollack, Alan. / SU‐FF‐J‐37 : Comparison Between CT‐Based and Ultrasound‐Based Localization for Prostate Patients. In: Medical Physics. 2006 ; Vol. 33, No. 6. pp. 2028.
@article{9cf324460ef046c9b844a9c1d6419690,
title = "SU‐FF‐J‐37: Comparison Between CT‐Based and Ultrasound‐Based Localization for Prostate Patients",
abstract = "Purpose: Prostate cancer is often treated with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) that provides very steep dose fall‐off outside of the target volume and therefore requires precise alignment. In this report, we compare ultrasound (U/S) and CT localization, and evaluate the uncertainties of the two modalities. Method and Materials: A total of 19 prostate patients (275 alignments) were included in the study. The prostate was localized with the BAT U/S system (Nomos, Cranberry, PA). CT scans were performed with the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails system (Siemens, Concord, CA). The two alignment techniques were identical: the simulation contours of the prostate, proximal seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum were aligned with a pre‐treatment image. The random uncertainty of the CT system was estimated based on intra‐user variability, and a simple mathematical model of the motion of radio‐opaque markers. Then the random error of the ultrasound alone was calculated. Results: The systematic differences between (U/S) and CT alignments were (in mm): 0.3 (lateral), 0.4 (AP) and 0.3 (longitudinal). The random differences between the two modalities (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 2.2 (lateral), 2.2 (AP) and 2.4 (longitudinal). The estimated ranges of random uncertainties of the CT alignments (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 0.9 to 1.2 (lateral), 0.7 to 1 (AP), and 1.2 to 1.5 (longitudinal). Based on these results, the calculated ranges of random uncertainties of the U/S alignments were (in mm): 1.8 to 2.0 (lateral), 2.0 to 2.1 (AP), and 1.9 to 2.1 (longitudinal). Conclusion: There was a strong correlation between the extent of prostate inter‐fraction alignments using ultrasound and CT. The localization of the prostate had a total uncertainty (two standard deviations) of 2 to 3 mm when using the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails and around 4 mm when using the BAT system.",
author = "K. Paskalev and S. Feigenberg and S. Mcneeley and E. Horwitz and R. Price and L. Wang and A. Konski and C. ma and Alan Pollack",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1118/1.2240815",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "2028",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐J‐37

T2 - Comparison Between CT‐Based and Ultrasound‐Based Localization for Prostate Patients

AU - Paskalev, K.

AU - Feigenberg, S.

AU - Mcneeley, S.

AU - Horwitz, E.

AU - Price, R.

AU - Wang, L.

AU - Konski, A.

AU - ma, C.

AU - Pollack, Alan

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Purpose: Prostate cancer is often treated with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) that provides very steep dose fall‐off outside of the target volume and therefore requires precise alignment. In this report, we compare ultrasound (U/S) and CT localization, and evaluate the uncertainties of the two modalities. Method and Materials: A total of 19 prostate patients (275 alignments) were included in the study. The prostate was localized with the BAT U/S system (Nomos, Cranberry, PA). CT scans were performed with the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails system (Siemens, Concord, CA). The two alignment techniques were identical: the simulation contours of the prostate, proximal seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum were aligned with a pre‐treatment image. The random uncertainty of the CT system was estimated based on intra‐user variability, and a simple mathematical model of the motion of radio‐opaque markers. Then the random error of the ultrasound alone was calculated. Results: The systematic differences between (U/S) and CT alignments were (in mm): 0.3 (lateral), 0.4 (AP) and 0.3 (longitudinal). The random differences between the two modalities (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 2.2 (lateral), 2.2 (AP) and 2.4 (longitudinal). The estimated ranges of random uncertainties of the CT alignments (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 0.9 to 1.2 (lateral), 0.7 to 1 (AP), and 1.2 to 1.5 (longitudinal). Based on these results, the calculated ranges of random uncertainties of the U/S alignments were (in mm): 1.8 to 2.0 (lateral), 2.0 to 2.1 (AP), and 1.9 to 2.1 (longitudinal). Conclusion: There was a strong correlation between the extent of prostate inter‐fraction alignments using ultrasound and CT. The localization of the prostate had a total uncertainty (two standard deviations) of 2 to 3 mm when using the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails and around 4 mm when using the BAT system.

AB - Purpose: Prostate cancer is often treated with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) that provides very steep dose fall‐off outside of the target volume and therefore requires precise alignment. In this report, we compare ultrasound (U/S) and CT localization, and evaluate the uncertainties of the two modalities. Method and Materials: A total of 19 prostate patients (275 alignments) were included in the study. The prostate was localized with the BAT U/S system (Nomos, Cranberry, PA). CT scans were performed with the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails system (Siemens, Concord, CA). The two alignment techniques were identical: the simulation contours of the prostate, proximal seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum were aligned with a pre‐treatment image. The random uncertainty of the CT system was estimated based on intra‐user variability, and a simple mathematical model of the motion of radio‐opaque markers. Then the random error of the ultrasound alone was calculated. Results: The systematic differences between (U/S) and CT alignments were (in mm): 0.3 (lateral), 0.4 (AP) and 0.3 (longitudinal). The random differences between the two modalities (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 2.2 (lateral), 2.2 (AP) and 2.4 (longitudinal). The estimated ranges of random uncertainties of the CT alignments (one standard deviation) were (in mm): 0.9 to 1.2 (lateral), 0.7 to 1 (AP), and 1.2 to 1.5 (longitudinal). Based on these results, the calculated ranges of random uncertainties of the U/S alignments were (in mm): 1.8 to 2.0 (lateral), 2.0 to 2.1 (AP), and 1.9 to 2.1 (longitudinal). Conclusion: There was a strong correlation between the extent of prostate inter‐fraction alignments using ultrasound and CT. The localization of the prostate had a total uncertainty (two standard deviations) of 2 to 3 mm when using the Primatom CT‐on‐Rails and around 4 mm when using the BAT system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024823471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024823471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2240815

DO - 10.1118/1.2240815

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024823471

VL - 33

SP - 2028

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -