Assessment of cone beam CT registration for prostate radiation therapy: Fiducial marker and soft tissue methods

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 91-98

  Deegan, Timothy ^a,b   Owen, Rebecca ^a,b   Holt, Tanya ^a,c   Fielding, Andrew ^b   Biggs, Jennifer ^a   Parfitt, Matthew ^a   Coates, Alicia ^a   Roberts, Lisa ^d  

^a Radiation Oncology Mater Centre   (Australia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d GOLD COAST UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

cone beam computed tomography; image guided; observer variation; prostate; radiotherapy

Indexed keywords

ACETABULUM PROSTHESIS; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FIDUCIAL MARKER; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE VOLUME; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING SYSTEM; CLINICAL TRIAL; DEVICES; IMAGE SUBTRACTION; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT POSITIONING; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; FIDUCIAL MARKERS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT POSITIONING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY, IMAGE-GUIDED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84922703274     PISSN: 17549477     EISSN: 17549485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12197     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. de Crevoisier R, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al. Increased risk of biochemical and local failure in patients with distended rectum on the planning CT for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62: 965-973.
2. Kupelian PA, Willoughby TR, Reddy CA, Klein EA, Mahadevan A,. Impact of image guidance on outcomes after external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 1146-1150.
3. Zelefsky MJ, Kollmeier M, Cox B, et al. Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 125-129.
4. Dehnad H, Nederveen AJ, van der Heide UA, van Moorselaar RJA, Hofman P, Lagendijk JJW,. Clinical feasibility study for the use of implanted gold seeds in the prostate as reliable positioning markers during megavoltage irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2003; 67: 295-302.
5. Schallenkamp JM, Herman MG, Kruse JJ, Pisansky TM,. Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63: 800-811.
6. Beltran C, Herman MG, Davis BJ,. Planning target margin calculations for prostate radiotherapy based on intrafraction and interfraction motion using four localization methods. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 289-295.
7. Shinohara K, Roach M III,. Technique for implantation of fiducial markers in the prostate. Urology 2008; 71: 196-200.
8. Gill S, Li J, Thomas J, et al. Patient-reported complications from fiducial marker implantation for prostate image-guided radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 1011-1017.
9. Gill S, Thomas J, Fox C, et al. Acute toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with and without image-guided radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2011; 6: 145. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-145.
10. Kok D, Gill S, Bressel M, et al. Late toxicity and biochemical control in 554 prostate cancer patients treated with and without dose escalated image guided radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107: 140-146.
11. Langenhuijsen JF, van Lin ENJT, Kiemeney LA, et al. Ultrasound-guided transrectal implantation of gold markers for prostate localization during external beam radiotherapy: complication rate and risk factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 671-676.
12. Berglund RK, Zaytoun O, Thousand R, et al. Early infectious complications with transponder placement for external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: 834-838.
13. Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P, Paterson DL,. Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: new challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57: 267-274.
14. Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH, Wong JW, Martinez AA,. Flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53: 1337-1349.
15. Oldham M, Létourneau D, Watt L, et al. Cone-beam-CT guided radiation therapy: a model for on-line application. Radiother Oncol 2005; 75: 271-278.
16. Deegan T, Owen R, Holt T, et al. Interobserver variability of radiation therapists aligning to fiducial markers for prostate radiation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2013; 57: 519-523.
17. Moseley DJ, White EA, Wiltshire KL, et al. Comparison of localization performance with implanted fiducial markers and cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67: 942-953.
18. Jones M, Dobson A, O'Brian S,. A graphical method for assessing agreement with the mean between multiple observers using continuous measures. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40: 1308-1313.
19. Bland J, Altman D,. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310.
20. Islam MK, Purdie TG, Norrlinger BD, et al. Patient dose from kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography imaging in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2006; 33: 1573-1582.
21. Ding GX, Munro P,. Radiation exposure to patients from image guidance procedures and techniques to reduce the imaging dose. Radiother Oncol 2013; 108: 91-98.
22. Barney BM, Lee RJ, Handrahan D, Welsh KT, Cook JT, Sause WT,. Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer comparing kV imaging of fiducial markers with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 80: 301-305.
23. Stock M, Pasler M, Birkfellner W, Homolka P, Poetter R, Georg D,. Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: a comparative study. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 1-7.
24. Morrow NV, Lawton CA, Qi XS, Li XA,. Impact of computed tomography image quality on image-guided radiation therapy based on soft tissue registration. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: e733-738.
25. Smitsmans MHP, Pos FJ, de Bois J, et al. The influence of a dietary protocol on cone beam CT-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: 1279-1286.
26. White EA, Brock KK, Jaffray DA, Catton CN,. Inter-observer variability of prostate delineation on cone beam computerised tomography images. Clin Oncol 2009; 21: 32-38.
27. Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Fotina I, Stock M, Pötter R, Goldner G, Georg D,. Feasibility of CBCT-based target and normal structure delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: multi-observer and image multi-modality study. Radiother Oncol 2011; 98: 154-161.
28. Nichol AM, Brock KK, Lockwood GA, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging study of prostate deformation relative to implanted gold fiducial markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67: 48-56.
29. Court LE, Dong L, Taylor N, et al. Evaluation of a contour-alignment technique for CT-guided prostate radiotherapy: an intra- and interobserver study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 412-418.
30. Hanna SA, Neves-Junior WFP, Marta GN, Haddad CMK, da Silva JLF,. Role of intra- or periprostatic calcifications in image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 1208-1216.
31. Sahota K, Bell L, Cox J, Atyeo J,. Improving the identification of male pelvic structures in post-prostatectomy patients on cone-beam CT: a region of interest atlas study. J Radiother Pract 2013; 12: 180-186.