Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer

Christopher F. Serago, Steven J. Buskirk, Todd C. Igel, Ashley A. Gale, Nicole E. Serago, John D. Earle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. Results: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 ± 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 ± 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 ± 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 ± 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 ± 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 ± 1.5 mm. Conclusions: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1585-1592
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume65
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2006

Fingerprint

Patient Positioning
Immobilization
markers
positioning
seeds
Prostate
Ultrasonography
Prostatic Neoplasms
Seeds
cancer
Skin
pretreatment
immobilization
electronics
Lasers
Vacuum
Therapeutics
Optical Imaging
Gold
Radiotherapy

Keywords

  • Fiducial markers
  • Imaging
  • Localization
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radiotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer. / Serago, Christopher F.; Buskirk, Steven J.; Igel, Todd C.; Gale, Ashley A.; Serago, Nicole E.; Earle, John D.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 65, No. 5, 01.08.2006, p. 1585-1592.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8b8cfdd44f2e463abfa07f90d896b406,
title = "Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. Results: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 ± 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 ± 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 ± 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 ± 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 ± 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 ± 1.5 mm. Conclusions: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.",
keywords = "Fiducial markers, Imaging, Localization, Prostate cancer, Radiotherapy",
author = "Serago, {Christopher F.} and Buskirk, {Steven J.} and Igel, {Todd C.} and Gale, {Ashley A.} and Serago, {Nicole E.} and Earle, {John D.}",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "1585--1592",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer

AU - Serago, Christopher F.

AU - Buskirk, Steven J.

AU - Igel, Todd C.

AU - Gale, Ashley A.

AU - Serago, Nicole E.

AU - Earle, John D.

PY - 2006/8/1

Y1 - 2006/8/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. Results: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 ± 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 ± 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 ± 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 ± 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 ± 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 ± 1.5 mm. Conclusions: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.

AB - Purpose: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. Results: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 ± 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 ± 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 ± 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 ± 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 ± 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 ± 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 ± 1.5 mm. Conclusions: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.

KW - Fiducial markers

KW - Imaging

KW - Localization

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Radiotherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748536709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748536709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.019

DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.019

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 1585

EP - 1592

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 5

ER -