• Steven H Lin, Elizabeth Sugar, Terrance Teslow, Todd McNutt, Habeeb Saleh, and Danny Y Song.
• Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 401 North Broadway, Suite 1440, Baltimore, Maryland 21231, USA.
• Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2008 Aug 1; 7 (4): 279-85.

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to compare daily couch shifts after prostate localization between megavoltage CT (MVCT, Hi-ART TomoTherapy) and b-mode ultrasound (BAT system). Nine hundred and thirteen couch shifts from 22 consecutive patients treated using MVCT localization were compared to 853 shifts from 23 randomly selected patients treated using b-mode ultrasound prostate localization. Shifts were made in three principal axes based on prostate position after comparing daily images to the initial planning CT. Mean shift for each axis and the shift variability both between and within individual subjects were calculated. Variability was higher for BAT compared to MVCT for vertical and cranial-caudal (CC) shifts (p=0.0084 and 0.01037, respectively), while lateral shifts were significantly greater for MVCT. For each individual, the pairwise correlations between shifts in different axes were calculated. Among all the groups and pairings, only the pairing of vertical and cranial/caudal adjustments in BAT-localized patients showed significant evidence of correlation after adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons (p=0.0006). When compared to MVCT, the use of BAT for prostate localization results in greater variability of positional adjustments in vertical and CC directions. This likely reflects differences in the ability to precisely align b-mode ultrasound contours to KVCT images, as well as prostate excursion in vertical and CC direction caused by the ultrasound probe. These considerations need to be made when defining treatment volumes, and argue for the use of less disruptive techniques for daily prostate localization.

27 keywords...

hide…