Method comparison of ultrasound and kilovoltage x-ray fiducial marker imaging for prostate radiotherapy targeting.
Several measurement techniques have been developed to address the capability for target volume reduction via target localization in image-guided radiotherapy; among these have been ultrasound (US) and fiducial marker (FM) software-assisted localization. In order to assess interchangeability between methods, US and FM localization were compared using established techniques for determination of agreement between measurement methods when a 'gold-standard' comparator does not exist, after performing both techniques daily on a sequential series of patients. At least 3 days prior to CT simulation, four gold seeds were placed within the prostate. FM software-assisted localization utilized the ExacTrac X-Ray 6D (BrainLab AG, Germany) kVp x-ray image acquisition system to determine prostate position; US prostate targeting was performed on each patient using the SonArray (Varian, Palo Alto, CA). Patients were aligned daily using laser alignment of skin marks. Directional shifts were then calculated by each respective system in the X, Y and Z dimensions before each daily treatment fraction, previous to any treatment or couch adjustment, as well as a composite vector of displacement. Directional shift agreement in each axis was compared using Altman-Bland limits of agreement, Lin's concordance coefficient with Partik's grading schema, and Deming orthogonal bias-weighted correlation methodology. 1,019 software-assisted shifts were suggested by US and FM in 39 patients. The 95% limits of agreement in X, Y and Z axes were +/-9.4 mm, +/-11.3 mm and +/-13.4, respectively. Three-dimensionally, measurements agreed within 13.4 mm in 95% of all paired measures. In all axes, concordance was graded as 'poor' or 'unacceptable'. Deming regression detected proportional bias in both directional axes and three-dimensional vectors. Our data suggest substantial differences between US and FM image-guided measures and subsequent suggested directional shifts. Analysis reveals that the vast majority of all individual US and FM directional measures may be expected to agree with each other within a range of 1-1.5 cm. Since neither system represents a gold standard, clinical judgment must dictate whether such a difference is of import. As IMRT protocols seek dose escalation and PTV reduction predicated on US- and FM-guided imaging, future studies are needed to address these potential clinically relevant issues regarding the interchangeability and accuracy of novel positional verification techniques. Comparison series with multiple image-guidance systems are needed to refine comparisons between targeting methods. However, we do not advocate interchangeability of US and FM localization methods.
Fuller
Clifton David
CD
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio, USA.
Thomas
Charles R
CR
Schwartz
Scott
S
Golden
Nanalei
N
Ting
Joe
J
Wong
Adrian
A
Erdogmus
Deniz
D
Scarbrough
Todd J
TJ
D002138:Calibration; D015331:Cohort Studies; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011467:Prostate / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal; D012984:Software; D014463:Ultrasonography; D014965:X-Rays