Initial experience with ultrasound localization for positioning prostate cancer patients for external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE Transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland and its immediate surrounding anatomy has been used to guide the positioning of patients for the treatment of prostate cancer. This process was evaluated in terms of (1) the reproducibility of the ultrasound measurement; (2) a comparison of patient position between ultrasound localization and skin marks determined from a CT treatment planning scan; (3) the predictive indicators of patient anatomy not well suited for ultrasound localization; (4) the measurement of prostate organ displacement resulting from ultrasound probe pressure; and (5) quality assurance measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS The reproducibility of the ultrasound positioning process was evaluated for same-day repeat positioning by the same ultrasound operator (22 patients) and for measurements made by 2 different operators (38 patients). Differences between conventional patient positioning (CT localization with skin markings) and ultrasound-based positioning were determined for 38 patients. The pelvic anatomy was evaluated for 34 patients with pretreatment CT scans to identify predictors of poor ultrasound image quality. The displacement of the prostate resulting from pressure of the ultrasound probe was measured for 16 patients with duplicate CT scans with and without a simulated probe. Finally, daily, monthly, and semiannual quality assurance tests were evaluated. RESULTS Self-verification tests of ultrasound positioning indicated a shift of <3 mm in approximately 95% of cases. Interoperator tests indicated shifts of <3 mm in approximately 80-90% of cases. The mean difference in patient positioning between conventional and ultrasound localization for lateral shifts was 0.3 mm (SD 2.5): vertical, 1.3 mm (SD 4.7 mm) and longitudinal, 1.0 mm (SD 5.1). However, on a single day, the differences were >10 mm in 1.5% of lateral shifts, 7% of longitudinal shifts, and 7% of vertical shifts. The depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis, but not the bladder volume, were significant predictive indicators of poor ultrasound imaging. The pressure of the ultrasound probe displaced the prostate in 7 of the 16 patients by an average distance of 3.1 mm; 9 patients (56%) showed no displacement. Finally, the quality assurance tests detected ultrasound equipment defects. CONCLUSION The ultrasound positioning system is reproducible and may indicate the need for significant positioning moves. Factors that predict poor image quality are the depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis. The prostate gland may be displaced a small amount by the pressure of the ultrasound probe. A quality assurance program is necessary to detect ultrasound equipment defects that could result in patient alignment errors.

[1]  M M Urie,et al.  Conformal irradiation of the prostate: estimating long-term rectal bleeding risk using dose-volume histograms. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  C. Perez,et al.  Tumor control in definitive irradiation of localized carcinoma of the prostate. , 1986, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  H Alasti,et al.  Portal imaging for evaluation of daily on-line setup errors and off-line organ motion during conformal irradiation of carcinoma of the prostate. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  C. Ling,et al.  Late rectal toxicity after conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer (I): multivariate analysis and dose-response. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  A. Hanlon,et al.  Defining the optimal radiation dose with three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy for patients with nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma by using recursive partitioning techniques , 2001, Cancer.

[7]  P. Bergström,et al.  High-precision conformal radiotherapy (HPCRT) of prostate cancer--a new technique for exact positioning of the prostate at the time of treatment. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  E. B. Butler,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer with the use of a rectal balloon for prostate immobilization: acute toxicity and dose-volume analysis. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  Clinical use of daily transabdominal ultrasound localization with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer , 2000 .

[10]  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.

[11]  H Shirato,et al.  Use of an implanted marker and real-time tracking of the marker for the positioning of prostate and bladder cancers. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  G Starkschall,et al.  Preliminary results of a randomized radiotherapy dose-escalation study comparing 70 Gy with 78 Gy for prostate cancer. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  H. Sandler,et al.  Dose escalation for stage C (T3) prostate cancer: minimal rectal toxicity observed using conformal therapy. , 1992, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[14]  A. Markoe,et al.  Preliminary report of toxicity following 3D radiation therapy for prostate cancer on 3DOG/RTOG 9406. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  J Szanto,et al.  Respiratory-induced prostate motion: quantification and characterization. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  P. Levendag,et al.  Acute morbidity reduction using 3DCRT for prostate carcinoma: a randomized study. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  C C Ling,et al.  High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[18]  M Goitein,et al.  Late rectal bleeding following combined X-ray and proton high dose irradiation for patients with stages T3-T4 prostate carcinoma. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Patrick A. Kupelian,et al.  Daily transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland with the BAT system: 2705 alignments from 100 patients , 2000 .

[20]  T R Willoughby,et al.  Short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer with daily transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  K. Langen,et al.  Organ motion and its management. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Dose escalation with 3D conformal treatment: five year outcomes, treatment optimization, and future directions. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  K Lam,et al.  Measurement of prostate movement over the course of routine radiotherapy using implanted markers. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.