A Single-Institution Prospective Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Real- Time Image-Gated Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy (RGPT) for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

In real-time image-gated spot-scanning proton therapy (RGPT), the dose distribution is distorted by gold fiducial markers placed in the prostate. Distortion can be suppressed by using small markers and more than 2 fields, but additional fields may increase the dose to organs at risk. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the safety and short-term clinical outcome of RGPT for prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials

Based on the previously reported frequency of early adverse events (AE) and the noninferiority margin of 10%, the required number of cases was calculated to be 43 using the one-sample binomial test by the Southwest Oncology Group statistical tools with the one-sided significance level of 2.5% and the power 80%. Patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled and 3 to 4 pure gold fiducial markers of 1.5-mm diameter were inserted in the prostate. The prescribed dose was 70 Gy(relative biologic effectiveness) in 30 fractions, and treatment was performed with 3 fields from the left, right, and the back, or 4 fields from either side of slightly anterior and posterior oblique fields. The primary endpoint was the frequency of early AE (≥grade 2) and the secondary endpoint was the biochemical relapse-free survival rate and the frequency of late AE.

Results

Forty-five cases were enrolled between 2015 and 2017, and all patients completed the treatment protocol. The median follow-up period was 63.0 months. The frequency of early AE (≥grade 2) was observed in 4 cases (8.9%), therefore the noninferiority was verified. The overall 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 88.9%. As late AE, grade 2 rectal bleeding was observed in 8 cases (17.8%).

Conclusions

The RGPT for prostate cancer with 1.5-mm markers and 3- or 4- fields was as safe as conventional proton therapy in early AE, and its efficacy was comparable with previous studies.

Evaluation of intrafractional prostate displacement during prostate radiotherapy using real-time ultrasound system

Transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) is an image-guided radiotherapy system used for tracking intrafraction prostate displacements in real time. The objectives of this study are to evaluate intrafraction prostate displacements and derive planning target volume (PTV) margins for prostate radiotherapy at our institution. The ultrasound (US) data of nine prostate cancer patients referred for VMAT radiotherapy was retrieved. Prior to beam on, patient position was set up with the US probe positioned transperineally with the aid of reference images (fused US and computed tomography images). In each fraction, prostate displacements in three directions [superior/inferior (SI), left/right (LR) and anterior/posterior (AP)] were recorded. PTV margins were determined using Van Herk's formula. To assess the prostate displacement time trend, continuous displacement data were plotted in 30-s intervals for eight minutes. The intrafraction prostate monitoring found a population mean setup error (M_p) of 0.8, 0.1, - 1.7 mm, a systematic error of (∑_p) 0.7, 0.4, 0.9 mm and random error (σ_p) of 0.2, 0.1, 0.3 mm in SI, LR and AP directions, respectively. The PTV margin was found to be the largest in the AP direction at 2.5 mm compared with 1.9 mm and 1.1 mm for SI and LR directions, respectively. The PTV margin allowed for prostate radiotherapy at our institution was 2.5 mm in all directions. The prostate displacement time trend showed an increase in intrafraction displacements, with most patients were observed to have strong positive correlation between time and intrafraction prostate displacements in SI direction. TPUS is feasible for monitoring intrafraction displacement of the prostate and may facilitate PTV margin generation to account for such displacements during radiotherapy.

Calculation of delivered composite dose from Calypso tracking data for prostate cancer: And subsequent evaluation of reasonable treatment interruption tolerance limits

Purpose

In this study we calculate composite dose delivered to the prostate by using the Calypso tracking ‐data‐ stream acquired during patient treatment in our clinic. We evaluate the composite distributions under multiple simulated Calypso tolerance level schemes and then recommend a tolerance level.

Materials and methods

Seven Calypso‐localized prostate cancer patients treated in our clinic were selected for retrospective analysis. Two different IMRT treatment plans, with prostate PTV margins of 5 and 3 mm respectively, were computed for each patient. A delivered composite dose distribution was computed from Calypso tracking data for each plan. Additionally, we explored the dosimetric implications for “worst case” scenarios by assuming that the prostate position was located at one of the eight extreme corners of a 3 or 5 mm “box.” To characterize plan quality under each of the studied scenarios, we recorded the maximum, mean, and minimum doses and volumetric coverage for prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum.

Results and discussions

Calculated composite dose distributions were very similar to the original plan for all patients. The difference in maximum, mean, and minimum doses as well as volumetric coverage for the prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum were all < 4.0% of prescription dose. Even for worst scenario cases, the results show acceptable isodose distribution, with the exception for the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin with a 5 mm position tolerance scheme.

Conclusions

Calculated composite dose distributions show that the vast majority of dosimetric metrics agreed well with the planned dose (within 2%). With significant/detrimental deviations from the planned dose only occurring with the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin and 5 mm position tolerance, the 3 mm position tolerance strategy appears reasonable, confirming that further reducing prostate PTV margins to 3 mm is possible when using Calypso with a position tolerance of 3 mm.

The Use of Ultrasound Imaging in the External Beam Radiotherapy Workflow of Prostate Cancer Patients

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is one of the curative treatment options for prostate cancer patients. The aim of this treatment option is to irradiate tumor tissue, while sparing normal tissue as much as possible. Frequent imaging during the course of the treatment (image guided radiotherapy) allows for determination of the location and shape of the prostate (target) and of the organs at risk. This information is used to increase accuracy in radiation dose delivery resulting in better tumor control and lower toxicity. Ultrasound imaging is harmless for the patient, it is cost-effective, and it allows for real-time volumetric organ tracking. For these reasons, it is an ideal technique for image guidance during EBRT workflows. Review papers have been published in which the use of ultrasound imaging in EBRT workflows for different cancer sites (prostate, breast, etc.) was extensively covered. This new review paper aims at providing the readers with an update on the current status for prostate cancer ultrasound guided EBRT treatments.

Evaluation of a new transperineal ultrasound probe for inter-fraction image-guidance for definitive and post-operative prostate cancer radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate a new system based on transperineal ultrasound (TP-US) acquisitions for prostate and post-prostatectomy pre-treatment positioning by comparing this device to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS

The differences between CBCT/CT and TP-US/TP-US registrations were analyzed on 427 and 453 sessions for 13 prostate and 14 post-prostatectomy patients, respectively. The inter-operator variability (IOV) of the registration process, and the impact and variability of the probe pressure were also evaluated.

RESULTS

CBCT and TP-US shift agreements at ± 5 mm were 76.6%, 95.1%, 96.3% and 90.3%, 85.0%, 97.6% in anterior-posterior, superior-inferior and left-right directions, for prostate and post-prostatectomy patients, respectively. IOV values were similar between the 2 modalities. Displacements above 5 mm due to strong pressures were observed on both localizations, but such pressures were rarely reproduced during treatment courses.

CONCLUSIONS

High concordance between CBCT/CT and TP-US/TP-US localization of prostates or prostatic beds was found in this study. TP-US based prepositioning is a feasible method to ensure accurate treatment delivery, and represents an attractive alternative to invasive and/or irradiating imaging modalities.

Impact of ultrasound probe pressure on uterine positional displacement in gynecologic cancer patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to quantify the uterine positional displacement induced by ultrasound probe pressure on a phantom and address the daily uterine motion in a healthy volunteer.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The phantom mimics the female pelvic region. The incorporated organs were subjected to displacement. A total of 42 phantom scans and 16 volunteer scans were acquired. The uterine shifts were measured in three directions.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The difference of uterine positional displacements, using pressure versus without pressure on the phantom, was not statistically significant. The daily uterine positional variations of the volunteer were larger than the probe pressure induced displacements.

CONCLUSION

The larger daily uterine shifts of the volunteer outweighed the submillimeter impact of the probe pressure in all directions.

Ultrasound versus Cone-beam CT image-guided radiotherapy for prostate and post-prostatectomy pretreatment localization

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of an intra-modality trans-abdominal ultrasound (TA-US) device against soft-tissue based Cone-Beam Computed tomography (CBCT) registration for prostate and post-prostatectomy pre-treatment positioning.

METHODS

The differences between CBCT and US shifts were calculated on 25 prostate cancer patients (cohort A) and 11 post-prostatectomy patients (cohort B), resulting in 284 and 106 paired shifts for cohorts A and B, respectively. As a second step, a corrective method was applied to the US registration results to decrease the systematic shifts observed between TA-US and CBCT results. This method consisted of subtracting the mean difference obtained between US and CBCT registration results during the first 3 sessions from the US registration results of the subsequent sessions. Inter-operator registration variability (IOV) was also investigated for both modalities.

RESULTS

After initial review, about 20% of the US images were excluded because of insufficient quality. The average differences between US and CBCT were: 2.8 ± 4.1 mm, -0.9 ± 4.2 mm, 0.4 ± 3.4 mm for cohort A and 1.3 ± 5.0 mm, -2.3 ± 4.6 mm, 0.5 ± 2.9 mm for cohort B, in the anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI) and lateral (LR) directions, respectively. After applying the corrective method, only the differences in the AP direction remained significant (p < 0.05). The IOV values were between 0.6-2.0 mm and 2.1-3.5 mm for the CBCT and TA-US modalities, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the obtained results and on the image quality, the TA-US imaging modality is not safely interchangeable with CBCT for pre-treatment repositioning. Treatment margins adaptation based on the correction of the systematic shifts should be considered.

Comparison of measurement methods with a mixed effects procedure accounting for replicated evaluations (COM3PARE): method comparison algorithm implementation for head and neck IGRT positional verification

Purpose

Comparison of imaging measurement devices in the absence of a gold-standard comparator remains a vexing problem; especially in scenarios where multiple, non-paired, replicated measurements occur, as in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). As the number of commercially available IGRT presents a challenge to determine whether different IGRT methods may be used interchangeably, an unmet need conceptually parsimonious and statistically robust method to evaluate the agreement between two methods with replicated observations. Consequently, we sought to determine, using an previously reported head and neck positional verification dataset, the feasibility and utility of a Comparison of Measurement Methods with the Mixed Effects Procedure Accounting for Replicated Evaluations (COM₃PARE), a unified conceptual schema and analytic algorithm based upon Roy’s linear mixed effects (LME) model with Kronecker product covariance structure in a doubly multivariate set-up, for IGRT method comparison.

Methods

An anonymized dataset consisting of 100 paired coordinate (X/ measurements from a sequential series of head and neck cancer patients imaged near-simultaneously with cone beam CT (CBCT) and kilovoltage X-ray (KVX) imaging was used for model implementation. Software-suggested CBCT and KVX shifts for the lateral (X), vertical (Y) and longitudinal (Z) dimensions were evaluated for bias, inter-method (between-subject variation), intra-method (within-subject variation), and overall agreement using with a script implementing COM₃PARE with the MIXED procedure of the statistical software package SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

COM₃PARE showed statistically significant bias agreement and difference in inter-method between CBCT and KVX was observed in the Z-axis (both p − value<0.01). Intra-method and overall agreement differences were noted as statistically significant for both the X- and Z-axes (all p − value<0.01). Using pre-specified criteria, based on intra-method agreement, CBCT was deemed preferable for X-axis positional verification, with KVX preferred for superoinferior alignment.

Conclusions

The COM₃PARE methodology was validated as feasible and useful in this pilot head and neck cancer positional verification dataset. COM₃PARE represents a flexible and robust standardized analytic methodology for IGRT comparison. The implemented SAS script is included to encourage other groups to implement COM₃PARE in other anatomic sites or IGRT platforms.

Prostate displacement during transabdominal ultrasound image-guided radiotherapy assessed by real-time four-dimensional transperineal monitoring

BACKGROUND

Transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) imaging is currently available for localizing the prostate in daily image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). The aim of this study was to determine the induced prostate displacement during such TAUS imaging. The prostate displacement was monitored using a novel transperineal four-dimensional (4D) US (TPUS) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten prostate cancer patients, with a mean age of 68 years (58/76), were US scanned in the computed tomography (CT) room utilizing the Clarity 4D TPUS monitoring system. The patients were asked to comply with a moderate bladder filling protocol. After US-CT fusion, the prostate volume was delineated and used as a reference for weekly US imaging in the treatment room. Immediately after treatment delivery the TPUS monitoring system was set up. During real-time monitoring of the prostate, a conventional 2D probe was applied to simulate a TAUS scan. The time dependent prostate displacements induced by the 2D probe pressure were recorded for the three orthogonal directions. In total 42 monitoring curves with applied 2D probe were recorded.

RESULTS

Data analysis of 42 US scans resulted in pressure induced prostate displacements with mean values (± 1 SD) (mm); inferior (+)-superior (I/S): (-0.1 ± 0.8); left (+)-right (L/R): (0.2 ± 0.7); and anterior (+)-posterior (A/P): (-0.1 ± 1.0). The majority of the displacements were within 1-2 mm. Only two scans (5%) (A/P direction) and 16% of Euclidean distances were larger than 2.0 mm. The largest displacement was 2.6 mm in the anterior direction.

CONCLUSION

The novel 4D TPUS system was capable of tracking and recording the prostate positional displacements. The study demonstrated that the prostate induced displacements due to applied TAUS IGRT are small, and in most cases clinically irrelevant to prostate radiotherapy.

Image-Guided Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer using 3 Different Techniques: Localization Data of 186 Patients

Aims and Background

This study evaluates 3 different imaging modalities—ultrasound (US), stereoscopic X-ray imaging of implanted markers (Visicoils) (X-ray), and kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)—to assess interfraction and intrafraction localization error during conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer.

Methods and Study Design

The study population consisted of 186 consecutive prostate cancer patients treated with an image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) hypofractionated protocol using 3 techniques: 32 with X-ray, 30 with CBCT, and 124 with US. Treatment dose of 70.2 Gy was delivered in 26 fractions with a conformal dynamic arcs technique. Interfraction prostate localization errors were determined for the 3 techniques. Moreover, interfraction and intrafraction prostate motion in terms of translations and rotations, as well as residual errors, were determined with X-ray.

Results

The systematic and random components of the prostate localization errors were as follows: ( 1 ) with X-ray 3.0 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.7, 1.8 ± 2.3 mm in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and left-right (LR) directions and 1.8° ± 1.2°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, 2.7° ± 3.1°, for the yaw, roll, and pitch rotations; ( 2 ) with CBCT3.5 ± 4.2, 3.3 ± 3.3, 2.5 ± 3.1 mm in AP, SI, and LR directions; ( 3 ) with US 3.7 ± 4.7, 3.4 ± 4.3, 2.3 ± 3.5 mm in AP, SI, and LR directions. Residual errors with X-ray were less than 1 mm in all directions. Intrafraction prostate motion of less than 0.5 mm in LR and of the order of 1 mm in AP and SI directions was found. This led to a significant reduction of the margins, potentially important for dose escalation studies.

Conclusions

Daily on-line IGRT with stereoscopic X-ray imaging allowed a consistent PTV margin reduction considering residual interfraction prostate localization error and intrafraction motion. X-ray offers the best compromise among accuracy, reliability, dose to the patient, and time investment for daily IGRT treatment of prostate.

Review of ultrasound image guidance in external beam radiotherapy: I. Treatment planning and inter-fraction motion management

In modern radiotherapy, verification of the treatment to ensure the target receives the prescribed dose and normal tissues are optimally spared has become essential. Several forms of image guidance are available for this purpose. The most commonly used forms of image guidance are based on kilovolt or megavolt x-ray imaging. Image guidance can also be performed with non-harmful ultrasound (US) waves. This increasingly used technique has the potential to offer both anatomical and functional information.This review presents an overview of the historical and current use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US imaging for treatment verification in radiotherapy. The US technology and the implementation in the radiotherapy workflow are described. The use of US guidance in the treatment planning process is discussed. The role of US technology in inter-fraction motion monitoring and management is explained, and clinical studies of applications in areas such as the pelvis, abdomen and breast are reviewed. A companion review paper (O'Shea et al 2015 Phys. Med. Biol. submitted) will extensively discuss the use of US imaging for intra-fraction motion quantification and novel applications of US technology to RT.

Impact of the observers' experience on daily prostate localization accuracy in ultrasound-based IGRT with the Clarity platform

The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of daily prostate localization with ultrasound imaging of various radiation oncologists with nonhomogeneous expertise. For ten patients who underwent radical radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, 11 radiation oncologists reviewed daily ultrasound scans acquired during three different treatment sessions. The average values of two senior radiation oncologists, considered to be expert observers, were selected as reference. The remaining nine observers were divided into two groups, Group 1 and Group 2, with more and less than one year of experience, respectively. The recorded shifts in prostate position were divided in three classes: <3 mm, 3–5 mm, and > 5 mm. Deviations from reference were less than 3 mm in all directions in 91% and 81% of measurements in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The maximum difference in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) was reported for superior‐inferior (SI) direction, in particular a mean difference of 3.24 mm was observed for Group 2 in respect to the reference; moreover RMSE was 1 and 1.3 mm higher for Group 2 for anterior‐posterior (AP) and left‐right (LR) directions, respectively. The difference between Groups 1 and 2 was significant (p < 0.01) for all directions. The mean values for the shifts in all three directions between Group 1 and the references were 0.235 mm, 0.385 mm, and 0.009 mm for the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. The position of the prostate gland is more easily detectable (p=0.02) in the AP direction, while the visibility is lower for LR (p=0.02) and SI boundaries (p < 0.05). The observers' experience is essential for positioning the target correctly; therefore, a training period is recommended before putting the system into clinical practice.

PACS number: 87.63.dh

Evaluation of imaging performance of megavoltage cone-beam CT over an extended period

A linear accelerator vendor and the AAPM TG-142 report propose that quality assurance testing for image-guided devices such megavoltage cone-beam CT (MV-CBCT) be conducted on a monthly basis. In clinical settings, however, unpredictable errors such as image artifacts can occur even when quality assurance results performed at this frequency are within tolerance limits. Here, we evaluated the imaging performance of MV-CBCT on a weekly basis for ∼ 1 year using a Siemens ONCOR machine with a 6-MV X-ray and an image-quality phantom. Image acquisition was undertaken using 15 monitor units. Geometric distortion was evaluated with beads evenly distributed in the phantom, and the results were compared with the expected position in three dimensions. Image-quality characteristics of the system were measured and assessed qualitatively and quantitatively, including image noise and uniformity, low-contrast resolution, high-contrast resolution and spatial resolution. All evaluations were performed 100 times each. For geometric distortion, deviation between the measured and expected values was within the tolerance limit of 2 mm. However, a subtle systematic error was found which meant that the phantom was rotated slightly in a clockwise manner, possibly due to geometry calibration of the MV-CBCT system. Regarding image noise and uniformity, two incidents over tolerance occurred in 100 measurements. This phenomenon disappeared after dose calibration of beam output for MV-CBCT. In contrast, all results for low-contrast resolution, high-contrast resolution and spatial resolution were within their respective tolerances.

Assessing Feasibility of Real-Time Ultrasound Monitoring in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Liver Tumors

To monitor tumor motion during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with liver cancer, an integrated ultrasound and kilo-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (KV-CBCT) system has been proposed. The presence of an ultrasound probe may interfere with the radiation beams. The purpose of this study is to minimize this interference by altering orientations of the ultrasound probe and directions of radiation beams while not compromising the quality of SBRT plans. Ten patients, who received SBRT of liver cancer, were randomly selected for this study. To simulate the presence of an ultrasound probe, a virtual probe was oriented either parallel or vertical to the longitudinal axis of the patient's body and was added on the surface of the patient's body at the nearest location to the tumor. For both the parallel and vertical probe orientations, 2 new SBRT (Probe-Para and Probe-Vert) plans that minimize the interference between the probe and radiation beams were created for each patient. These SBRT plans were compared to the original clinically accepted SBRT plans, with a treatment goal of 37.5 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) in 3 fractions. Specific dosimetric endpoints were evaluated, including doses to 95% (D95), of the PTV plan conformal index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and relevant endpoint doses to organs at risk. For 2 patients with superficially located tumors, no clinically acceptable SBRT plans could be produced without the interference between the probe and radiation beams. For the remaining 8 patients, the Probe-Para plans allowed 7 patients to be treated with coplanar radiation beams (without moving the treatment couch during treatment) and 1 patient to be treated with non-coplanar beams (by moving the treatment couch during treatment). The Probe-Vert plans allowed 2 patients to be treated with coplanar beams and 6 patients to be treated with non-coplanar beams. The average D95 of the PTV were 38.63 Gy ± 0.14 ( p = 0.65) for Probe-Para plans, 38.48 Gy ± 0.31 ( p = 0.33) for Probe-Vert plans, and 38.72 Gy ± 0.14 for clinical SBRT plans. There were no significant differences ( p > 0.05) in CI and HI of all SBRT plans. The endpoint doses to the liver, heart, esophagus, right kidney, and stomach also had no significant differences ( p > 0.05). Except for superficial lesions, real-time ultrasound monitoring during liver SBRT is clinically feasible. Placing the ultrasound probe parallel to the longitudinal axis of the patient allows a greater probability of utilizing preferred coplanar beams.

An evaluation of the Clarity 3D ultrasound system for prostate localization

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the Clarity 3D ultrasound system to track prostate gland positional variations due to setup error and organ motion. Seventeen patients (n = 17) undergoing radical external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer were studied. Subsequent to initial reference ultrasound and planning CT scans, each patient underwent seven repeat weekly tracking CT and ultrasound (US) scans during the course of treatment. Variations in the location of the prostate between reference and tracking scans were measured. Differences reported by CT and ultrasound scans are compared. Ultrasound tracking was initially performed clinically by a group of trained general users. Retrospective prostate localization was then performed by a trained dedicated user upon the original raw data set and also a reduced data set derived from the original by an expert user from Resonant Medical. Correlation accuracy between ultrasound and CT shifts acquired and delineated by a pool of trained general users was deemed unacceptable for radiotherapy purposes. A mean discrepancy between CT and US localizations of greater than 10 mm, with a 5 mm or greater discrepancy rate of nearly 90%, was observed. Retrospective analysis by a dedicated user of both the original and Resonant Medical reduced data sets yielded mean CT-Us discrepancies of 8.7 mm and 7.4 mm, respectively. Unfortunately, the 5 mm or greater CT-US discord rate for these retrospective analyses failed to drop below 80%. The greatest disparity between CT and ultrasound was consistently observed in the superior-inferior direction, while greatest agreement was achieved in the lateral dimension. Despite an expert reanalysis of the original data, the Clarity ultrasound system failed to deliver an acceptable level of geometric accuracy required for modern radiotherapy purposes.

High-performance GPU-based rendering for real-time, rigid 2D/3D-image registration and motion prediction in radiation oncology

A common problem in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) of lung cancer as well as other malignant diseases is the compensation of periodic and aperiodic motion during dose delivery. Modern systems for image-guided radiation oncology allow for the acquisition of cone-beam computed tomography data in the treatment room as well as the acquisition of planar radiographs during the treatment. A mid-term research goal is the compensation of tumor target volume motion by 2D/3D Registration. In 2D/3D registration, spatial information on organ location is derived by an iterative comparison of perspective volume renderings, so-called digitally rendered radiographs (DRR) from computed tomography volume data, and planar reference x-rays. Currently, this rendering process is very time consuming, and real-time registration, which should at least provide data on organ position in less than a second, has not come into existence. We present two GPU-based rendering algorithms which generate a DRR of 512×512 pixels size from a CT dataset of 53 MB size at a pace of almost 100 Hz. This rendering rate is feasible by applying a number of algorithmic simplifications which range from alternative volume-driven rendering approaches - namely so-called wobbled splatting - to sub-sampling of the DRR-image by means of specialized raycasting techniques. Furthermore, general purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU) programming paradigms were consequently utilized. Rendering quality and performance as well as the influence on the quality and performance of the overall registration process were measured and analyzed in detail. The results show that both methods are competitive and pave the way for fast motion compensation by rigid and possibly even non-rigid 2D/3D registration and, beyond that, adaptive filtering of motion models in IGRT.

Evaluation of prostate volume by transabdominal ultrasonography with modified ellipsoid formula at different stages of benign prostatic hyperplasia

The aim of the study was to propose an eccentricity parameter (EP)-based correction to the ellipsoid formula to improve the evaluation of the prostate volume defined by transabdominal ultrasonography (TAUS) at different stages of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). All 202 adult male volunteers underwent the prostate volume evaluations with TAUS and computerized tomography (CT). Based on the EP index, three clearly different stages of BPH were also deduced by analytical analysis. By applying the correction formula, the mean prostate volume differences of TAUS with CT were improved from 28.1%, -25.4% and -0.6% to 7.6%, -3.5% and -0.6% for EP < 0.055, 0.055 < EP < 0.14 and EP > 0.14, respectively. Hence, for EP > 0.14, representing the advanced stage of BPH, TAUS with the ellipsoid formula can be regarded as an effective tool for computing volume, whereas for EP < 0.14, the correction formula is recommended to improve the volume estimation based on TAUS.