scholarly journals Impact Analysis of the Interobserver Variability in CBCT-Based Soft-Tissue Matching using TCP/NTCP Models for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Author(s):  
Xiangbin Zhang ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Xiaoyu Li ◽  
Li Zhou ◽  
Shihong Nie ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Prostate alignment is subject to interobserver variability in cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based soft-tissue matching. This study aims to analyze the impact of interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching for prostate cancer radiotherapy.Methods: Retrospective data, consisting of 156 CBCT images from twelve patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed in this study. To simulate interobserver variability, couch shifts of 2 mm relative to the resulting patient position of prostate alignment were assumed as potential patient positions (27 possibilities). For each CBCT, the doses of the potential patient positions were recalculated using deformable image registration-based synthetic CT. The impact of the simulated interobserver variability was evaluated using tumor control probabilities (TCPs) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs).Results: No significant differences in TCPs were found between prostate alignment and potential patient positions (0.944 ± 0.003 vs 0.945 ± 0.003, P = 0.117). The average NTCPs of the rectum ranged from 5.16 (%) to 7.29 (%) among the potential patient positions and were highly influenced by the couch shift in anterior-posterior direction. In contrast, the average NTCPs of the bladder ranged from 0.75 (%) to 1.12 (%) among the potential patient positions and were relatively negligible.Conclusions: The NTCPs of the rectum, rather than the TCPs of the target, were highly influenced by the interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching. This study provides a theoretical explanation for daily CBCT-based image guidance and the prostate-rectum interface matching procedure.Trial registration: Not applicable.

2009 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. S161 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Karaiskos ◽  
P. Mavroidis ◽  
B. Costa Ferreira ◽  
N. Papanikolaou ◽  
P. Sandilos ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Daryl Lim Joon ◽  
Michael Chao ◽  
Angelina Piccolo ◽  
Michal Schneider ◽  
Nigel Anderson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 100331
Author(s):  
Beatrice Detti ◽  
Gianluca Ingrosso ◽  
Carlotta Becherini ◽  
Andrea Lancia ◽  
Emanuela Olmetto ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Daryoush Khoramian ◽  
Soroush Sistani ◽  
Bagher Farhood

Abstract Aim: In radiation therapy, accurate dose distribution in target volume requires accurate treatment setup. The set-up errors are unwanted and inherent in the treatment process. By achieving these errors, a set-up margin (SM) of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) can be determined. In the current study, systematic and random set-up errors that occurred during prostate cancer radiotherapy were measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The obtained values were used to propose the optimum CTV-to-PTV margin in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Materials and methods: A total of 21 patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) participated in this study. A total of 280 portal images were acquired during 12 months. Gross, population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were obtained based on the portal images in Anterior–Posterior (AP), Medio-Lateral (ML) and Superior–Inferior (SI) directions. The SM of CTV to PTV were then calculated and compared by using the formulas presented by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62, Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al. Results: The findings showed that the population systematic errors during prostate cancer radiotherapy in AP, ML and SI directions were 1·40, 1·95 and 1·94 mm, respectively. The population random errors in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·09, 1·85 and 2·29 mm, respectively. The SM of CTV to PTV calculated in accordance with the formula of ICRU 62 in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·51, 2·68 and 3·00 mm, respectively. And according to Stroom and Heijmen, formula were 4·23, 5·19 and 5·48 mm, respectively. And Van Herk et al. formula were 4·96, 6·17 and 6·45 mm, respectively. Findings: The SM of CTV to PTV in all directions, based on the formulas of ICRU 62, Stroom and Heijmen and van Herk et al., were equal to 2·73, 4·98 and 5·86 mm, respectively; these values were obtained by averaging the margins in all directions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document