Premium
SU‐G‐JeP1‐09: Evaluation of Transperineal Ultrasound Imaging as a Potential Solution for Target Tracking During Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Author(s) -
Najafi M,
Han B,
Cooper D,
Hancock S,
Hristov D
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956984
Subject(s) - fiducial marker , imaging phantom , medicine , prostate cancer , prostate , nuclear medicine , tracking (education) , sabr volatility model , match moving , ultrasound , dosimetry , radiology , computer science , motion (physics) , cancer , mathematics , artificial intelligence , psychology , volatility (finance) , pedagogy , stochastic volatility , econometrics
Purpose: Prostate SABR is emerging as a clinically viable, potentially cost effective alternative to prostate IMRT but its adoption is contingent on providing solutions for accurate tracking during beam delivery. Our goal is to evaluate the performance of the Clarity Autoscan ultrasound monitoring system for inter‐fractional prostate motion tracking in both phantoms and in‐vivo. Methods: In‐vivo evaluation was performed under IRB protocol to allow data collection in prostate patients treated with VMAT whereby prostate was imaged through the acoustic window of the perineum. The probe was placed before KV imaging and real‐time tracking was started and continued until the end of treatment. Initial absolute 3D positions of fiducials were estimated from KV images. Fiducial positions in MV images subsequently acquired during beam delivery were compared with predicted positions based on Clarity estimated motion. Results: Phantom studies with motion amplitudes of ±1.5, ±3, ±6 mm in lateral direction and ±2 mm in longitudinal direction resulted in tracking errors of −0.03 ± 0.3, −0.04 ± 0.6, −0.2 ± 0.9 mm, respectively, in lateral direction and −0.05 ± 0.30 mm in longitudinal direction. In phantom, measured and predicted fiducial positions in MV images were within 0.1 ± 0.6 mm. Four patients consented to participate in the study and data was acquired over a total of 140 fractions. MV imaging tracking was possible in about 75% of the time (due to occlusion of fiducials) compared to 100% with Clarity. Overall range of estimated motion by Clarity was 0 to 4.0 mm. In‐vivo fiducial localization error was 1.2 ± 1.0 mm compared to 1.8 ± 1.9 mm if not taking Clarity estimated motion into account. Conclusion: Real‐time transperineal ultrasound tracking reduces uncertainty in prostate position due to intrafractional motion. Research was supported by Elekta.