scholarly journals OC-0157: Atlas-based segmentation of prostatic urethra in the planning CT of prostate cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. S79-S80
Author(s):  
O. Acosta ◽  
M. Le Dain ◽  
C. Voisin ◽  
R. Bastien ◽  
C. Lafond ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 125 (3) ◽  
pp. 492-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Acosta ◽  
Eugenia Mylona ◽  
Mathieu Le Dain ◽  
Camille Voisin ◽  
Thibaut Lizee ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hiroki Sato ◽  
Takahiro Kato ◽  
Tomoaki Motoyanagi ◽  
Kimihiro Takemasa ◽  
Yuki Narita ◽  
...  

Abstract In recent years, a novel technique has been employed to maintain a distance between the prostate and the rectum by transperineally injecting a hydrogel spacer (HS). However, the effect of HS on the prostate positional displacement is poorly understood, despite its stability with HS in place. In this study, we investigated the effect of HS insertion on the interfraction prostate motion during the course of proton therapy (PT) for Japanese prostate cancer patients. The study population consisted of 22 cases of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with 11 cases with HS insertion and 11 cases without HS insertion. The irradiation position and preparation were similar for both groups. To test for reproducibility, regular confirmation computed tomography (RCCT) was done four times during the treatment period, and five times overall [including treatment planning CT (TPCT)] in each patient. Considering the prostate position of the TPCT as the reference, the change in the center of gravity of the prostate relative to the bony anatomy in the RCCTs of each patient was determined in the left–right (LR), superior–inferior (SI) and anterior–posterior (AP) directions. As a result, no significant difference was observed across the groups in the LR and SI directions. Conversely, a significant difference was observed in the AP direction (P < 0.05). The proportion of the 3D vector length ≤5 mm was 95% in the inserted group, but 55% in the non-inserted group. Therefore, HS is not only effective in reducing rectal dose, but may also contribute to the positional reproducibility of the prostate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshinori Tanabe ◽  
Takayuki Ishida ◽  
Hidetoshi Eto ◽  
Tatsuhiro Sera ◽  
Yuki Emoto

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fuss ◽  
Sean X. Cavanaugh ◽  
Cristina Fuss ◽  
Dennis A. Cheek ◽  
Bill J. Salter

We analyzed the inter-user variability of patient setup for prostate radiotherapy using a stereotactic ultrasound-targeting device. Setup variations in 20 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Users were a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, four radiation technologists (RTT) and a radiologist. The radiation oncologist, radiologist, physicist and two RTTs were experienced users of the system (>18 months of experience); two RTTs were users new to the system. Gold standard for this analysis was a control CT acquired immediately following ultrasound targeting. For inter-user variability assessments, the radiation oncologist provided a set of axial and sagittal freeze-frames (standard freeze-frames) for virtual targeting by all users. Additionally each user acquired individual freeze-frames for target alignments. We analyzed the range of virtual setups in each patient along the principal room axes based on standard and individual freeze-frames. The magnitude of residual setup error and percentage of setup change for each user was assessed by control CT/planning CT comparison with individual virtual shifts. A total of 184 alignments were analyzed. The range of virtual shifts between users was 2.7±1.4, 3.6±1.1, and 4.4±1.4 mm (mean±SD) in x, y and z-direction for setups based on standard freeze-frames and 3.9±2.6, 6.0±4.7, and 5.4±2.7 mm for setups based on individual freeze-frames. When only virtual shifts of experienced users were analyzed, the mean ranges were reduced by up to 2.4 mm. Average magnitude of initial setup error before ultrasound targeting was 14.3 mm. Average improvement of prostate setup was 63.1±23.4% in experienced and 35.14±37.7% in inexperienced users, respectively (p<0.0001). Only 5 of 184 (2.7%) virtual alignments would have introduced new larger setup errors (mean 3.2 mm, range 0.2 to 9.5 mm) than the magnitude of the initial setup error. We conclude that ultrasound guided treatment setup for patients treated for prostate cancer can be performed with high inter-user consistency and does lead to improved treatment setup in more than 97% of attempted setups. Experienced use is correlated with a reduced range of setups between users and higher degree of setup improvement when compared with users new to the system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document