Keyword search (3,448 papers available)


Improving 3D ultrasound prostate localisation in radiotherapy through increased automation of interfraction matching.

Author(s): Grimwood A, Rivaz H, Zhou H, McNair HA, Yakubowski K, Bamber JC, Tree AC, Harris EJ

Radiother Oncol. 2020 May 06;: Authors: Grimwood A, Rivaz H, Zhou H, McNair HA, Yakubowski K, Bamber JC, Tree AC, Harris EJ

Article GUID: 32387546
Title:Improving 3D ultrasound prostate localisation in radiotherapy through increased automation of interfraction matching.
Authors:Grimwood A,  Rivaz H,  Zhou H,  McNair HA,  Yakubowski K,  Bamber JC,  Tree AC,  Harris EJ
Link:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32387546?dopt=Abstract
DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.044
Category:Radiother Oncol
PMID:32387546
Dept Affiliation: PHYSICS
1 Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital Trust, Sutton, UK.
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
3 Department of Medical Physics, University of Silesia, Chorzów, Poland.
4 Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital Trust, Sutton, UK. Electronic address: emma.harris@icr.ac.uk.

Description:

Improving 3D ultrasound prostate localisation in radiotherapy through increased automation of interfraction matching.

Radiother Oncol. 2020 May 06;:

Authors: Grimwood A, Rivaz H, Zhou H, McNair HA, Yakubowski K, Bamber JC, Tree AC, Harris EJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Daily image guidance is standard care for prostate radiotherapy. Innovations which improve the accuracy and efficiency of ultrasound guidance are needed, particularly with respect to reducing interobserver variation. This study explores automation tools for this purpose, demonstrated on the Elekta Clarity Autoscan®. The study was conducted as part of the Clarity Pro trial (NCT02388308).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ultrasound scan volumes were collected from 32 patients. Prostate matches were performed using two proposed workflows and the results compared with Clarity's proprietary software. Gold standard matches derived from manually localised landmarks provided a reference. The two workflows incorporated a custom 3D image registration algorithm, which was benchmarked against a third-party application (Elastix).

RESULTS: Significant reductions in match errors were reported from both workflows compared to standard protocol. Median (IQR) absolute errors in the left-right, anteroposterior and craniocaudal axes were lowest for the Manually Initiated workflow: 0.7(1.0) mm, 0.7(0.9) mm, 0.6(0.9) mm compared to 1.0(1.7) mm, 0.9(1.4) mm, 0.9(1.2) mm for Clarity. Median interobserver variation was << 0.01 mm in all axes for both workflows compared to 2.2 mm, 1.7 mm, 1.5 mm for Clarity in left-right, anteroposterior and craniocaudal axes. Mean matching times was also reduced to 43 s from 152 s for Clarity. Inexperienced users of the proposed workflows attained better match precision than experienced users on Clarity.

CONCLUSION: Automated image registration with effective input and verification steps should increase the efficacy of interfraction ultrasound guidance compared to the current commercially available tools.

PMID: 32387546 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]