Impact of probe pressure variability on prostate localization for ultrasound-based image-guided radiotherapy.

PURPOSE To evaluate the impact of transabdominal probe pressure on prostate positioning with an intramodality ultrasound (US) image-guided-radiotherapy system and to quantify pressure variability over the treatment course. MATERIAL AND METHODS 8 prostate cancer patients (group A) and 17 healthy volunteers underwent 3 consecutive US images with increasing probe pressure levels, and 1 CT acquisition for the group A only. Prostate positions were compared after manual registration of the first US image contour projected on 2 others. Group A's pressure levels were quantified by measuring skin-to-skin distances between corresponding CT-US images. The same methodology was used on paired CT/CBCT-US images acquired during treatments of 18 prostate cancer patients to determine whether the different pressure levels applied to the group A were close to the clinical practices and to quantify pressure variability along the treatment course. RESULTS 84% of 3D prostate displacements were above 2mm for at least one pressure level. Probe pressures deliberately applied were similar to the ones observed clinically. The latter drastically varied between sessions. CONCLUSION Even with an intramodality system, probe pressure can impact prostate localization because of the pressure variability along the treatment course. Therefore, margins should be expanded from 0.5 to 1.2mm to ensure treatment accuracy.

[1]  Barbara Dobler,et al.  Evaluation of Possible Prostate Displacement Induced by Pressure Applied during Transabdominal Ultrasound Image Acquisition , 2006, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[2]  W Beckham,et al.  3D ultrasound for prostate localization in radiation therapy: a comparison with implanted fiducial markers. , 2008, Medical physics.

[3]  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.

[4]  Gary A Ezzell,et al.  Initial experience with ultrasound localization for positioning prostate cancer patients for external beam radiotherapy. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Patrick A Kupelian,et al.  Influence of intrafraction motion on margins for prostate radiotherapy. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[7]  Wolfgang Birkfellner,et al.  Automatic patient alignment system using 3D ultrasound. , 2013, Medical physics.

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

[9]  M. Herk Errors and margins in radiotherapy. , 2004 .

[10]  Franck Bonnetain,et al.  Clinical impact of margin reduction on late toxicity and short-term biochemical control for patients treated with daily on-line image guided IMRT for prostate cancer. , 2012, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  Clifton D Fuller,et al.  Comparison of ultrasound and implanted seed marker prostate localization methods: Implications for image-guided radiotherapy. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  Stine Korreman,et al.  The European Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology-European Institute of Radiotherapy (ESTRO-EIR) report on 3D CT-based in-room image guidance systems: a practical and technical review and guide. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  Wendy L. Smith,et al.  Prostate volume contouring: a 3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[15]  Stine Korreman,et al.  Comparison of the accuracy and precision of prostate localization with 2D-2D and 3D images. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  David A Jaffray,et al.  Online ultrasound image guidance for radiotherapy of prostate cancer: impact of image acquisition on prostate displacement. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.