Cargando…

Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization

The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B‐mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Foster, Ryan D., Solberg, Timothy D., Li, Haisen S., Kerkhoff, Andrew, Enke, Charles A., Willoughby, Twyla R., Kupelian, Patrick A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20160686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924
_version_ 1783284556797837312
author Foster, Ryan D.
Solberg, Timothy D.
Li, Haisen S.
Kerkhoff, Andrew
Enke, Charles A.
Willoughby, Twyla R.
Kupelian, Patrick A.
author_facet Foster, Ryan D.
Solberg, Timothy D.
Li, Haisen S.
Kerkhoff, Andrew
Enke, Charles A.
Willoughby, Twyla R.
Kupelian, Patrick A.
author_sort Foster, Ryan D.
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B‐mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16,619 imaging sessions spanning seven years. Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound‐based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3–4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization. PACS number: 87.63.dh
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5719783
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57197832018-04-02 Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization Foster, Ryan D. Solberg, Timothy D. Li, Haisen S. Kerkhoff, Andrew Enke, Charles A. Willoughby, Twyla R. Kupelian, Patrick A. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B‐mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16,619 imaging sessions spanning seven years. Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound‐based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3–4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization. PACS number: 87.63.dh John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2010-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5719783/ /pubmed/20160686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924 Text en © 2010 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Foster, Ryan D.
Solberg, Timothy D.
Li, Haisen S.
Kerkhoff, Andrew
Enke, Charles A.
Willoughby, Twyla R.
Kupelian, Patrick A.
Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
title Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
title_full Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
title_fullStr Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
title_short Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
title_sort comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20160686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924
work_keys_str_mv AT fosterryand comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization
AT solbergtimothyd comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization
AT lihaisens comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization
AT kerkhoffandrew comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization
AT enkecharlesa comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization
AT willoughbytwylar comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization
AT kupelianpatricka comparisonoftransabdominalultrasoundandelectromagnetictranspondersforprostatelocalization