Consequences of Intermodality Registration Errors for Intramodality 3D Ultrasound IGRT

Intramodality ultrasound image-guided radiotherapy systems compare daily ultrasound to reference ultrasound images. Nevertheless, because the actual treatment planning is based on a reference computed tomography image, and not on a reference ultrasound image, their accuracy depends partially on the correct intermodality registration of the reference ultrasound and computed tomography images for treatment planning. The error propagation in daily patient positioning due to potential registration errors at the planning stage was assessed in this work. Five different scenarios were simulated involving shifts or rotations of ultrasound or computed tomography images. The consequences of several workflow procedures were tested with a phantom setup. As long as the reference ultrasound and computed tomography images are made to match, the patient will be in the correct treatment position. In an example with a phantom measurement, the accuracy of the performed manual fusion was found to be ≤2 mm. In clinical practice, manual registration of patient images is expected to be more difficult. Uncorrected mismatches will lead to a systematically incorrect final patient position because there will be no indication that there was a misregistration between the computed tomography and reference ultrasound images. In the treatment room, the fusion with the computed tomography image will not be visible and based on the ultrasound images the patient position seems correct.

[1]  Arthur Hung,et al.  A comparison of CT scan to transrectal ultrasound-measured prostate volume in untreated prostate cancer. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  Davide Fontanarosa,et al.  Review of ultrasound image guidance in external beam radiotherapy: I. Treatment planning and inter-fraction motion management , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  B. Salter,et al.  Evaluation of alignment error due to a speed artifact in stereotactic ultrasound image guidance. , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Michael G Herman,et al.  Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. , 2011, Practical radiation oncology.

[5]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Ultrasound-based image guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer: comparison of cross-modality and intramodality methods for daily localization during external beam radiotherapy. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  A method to compare supra-pubic ultrasound and CT images of the prostate: technique and early clinical results. , 2004, Medical physics.

[7]  David A. Jaffray,et al.  Safety considerations for IGRT: Executive summary , 2013, Practical radiation oncology.

[8]  Alexander Markovic,et al.  Quality assurance of U.S.-guided external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: report of AAPM Task Group 154. , 2011, Medical physics.

[9]  Eric Strom,et al.  Ultrasound-based localization. , 2005, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[10]  F. Lohr,et al.  Accuracy of ultrasound-based image guidance for daily positioning of the upper abdomen: an online comparison with cone beam CT. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  I. Chetty,et al.  Evaluation of multiple image-based modalities for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of prostate carcinoma: a prospective study. , 2013, Medical physics.

[12]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  A comparison of daily CT localization to a daily ultrasound-based system in prostate cancer. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Davide Fontanarosa,et al.  A CT based correction method for speed of sound aberration for ultrasound based image guided radiotherapy. , 2011, Medical physics.

[14]  F. Verhaegen,et al.  On the significance of density-induced speed of sound variations on US-guided radiotherapy. , 2012, Medical physics.

[15]  Davide Fontanarosa,et al.  Magnitude of speed of sound aberration corrections for ultrasound image guided radiotherapy for prostate and other anatomical sites. , 2012, Medical physics.

[16]  P L Roberson,et al.  Impact of differences in ultrasound and computed tomography volumes on treatment planning of permanent prostate implants. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Davide Fontanarosa,et al.  Critical assessment of intramodality 3D ultrasound imaging for prostate IGRT compared to fiducial markers. , 2013, Medical physics.

[18]  Eric C Ford,et al.  Evaluation of safety in a radiation oncology setting using failure mode and effects analysis. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Davide Fontanarosa,et al.  A speed of sound aberration correction algorithm for curvilinear ultrasound transducers in ultrasound-based image-guided radiotherapy , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.