Changes in penile bulb dose when using the Clarity transperineal ultrasound probe: A planning study

Impact of transperineal ultrasound on perineal skin dose in prostate radiation therapy

Introduction

This study investigated the relationship between anatomical compression introduced via ultrasound probe pressure and maximum perineum dose in prostate radiotherapy patients using the Clarity transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) system.

Methods

115 patient ultrasound and computed tomography scans were retrospectively analysed. The probe to prostate apex distance (PPA), probe to inferior corpus spongiosum distance (PICS) and maximum perineum dose were calculated. Compression was represented by the PICS and the calculated corpus to prostate ratio (CPR). Demographics included treatment technique, image quality, body mass index (BMI) and age. Multiple linear regression analysis assessed the relationship between compression measures and perineum dose.

Results

The maximum dose to perineum ranged from 1.81 to 45.56 Gy, with a median of 5.87 Gy (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.17). The PICS distance and CPR recorded was 1.67 cm (IQR 0.63) and 0.51 (range 0.29-0.85) respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated both PICS and CPR were significant predictors of maximum dose to the perineum (p < 0.001). Patient-specific factors, including age, BMI, treatment technique and ultrasound image quality, were not factors that significantly impacted the maximum perineum dose.

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant association between increased anatomical compression and perineal dose measurements. A PICS of 1.2 cm or greater is recommended, with compression reduced as much as possible without losing anatomical US definition. Future investigations would be beneficial to evaluate the optimal balance between ultrasound image quality and transducer compression considering the perineum dose.

Anatomical and dosimetric assessment of the prostate apex: A pilot comparison of image-guided transperineal ultrasound to conventional computed tomography simulation

INTRODUCTION

Inaccuracies in prostate apex contour delineation based on simulation computed tomography (CT) imaging can impact treatment outcomes and toxicity profiles for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) is a non-invasive imaging modality that can improve delineation of prostate volumes. We performed a pilot analysis to assess for differences in anatomical position between conventional CT and a TPUS delineated prostate apex and determined whether these translated into a clinically significant difference in apical point dose.

METHODS

A 2D 5 MHz TPUS autoscan image guidance system was utilised during definitive intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. Distances were measured from a fixed reference point to prostate apex on both US and CT in the mid-sagittal plane. Differences between groups were assessed using the Wilcoxon sign rank test with a two-tailed significance of α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine consecutive patients were independently assessed. There was strong evidence of a difference between CT and TPUS delineated apex position (P = 0.0075). Median apex position was 3.6 mm caudal on TPUS vs. CT imaging (95% CI: 2.5-4.8 mm). There was strong evidence of a difference in point dose between CT and TPUS delineated apex (P = 0.0029). Median point dose at the TPUS contoured apex was 1.9 Gy lower than CT (95% CI: 0.7-3.1 Gy) corresponding to 98% of prescribed dose.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a difference in anatomical delineation of prostate apex position between CT imaging compared to TPUS, corresponding to a statistically significant difference in apex point dose. Further analysis will determine whether this translates to a clinically significant difference in outcomes.

Analysis of intra-fraction prostate motion and derivation of duration-dependent margins for radiotherapy using real-time 4D ultrasound

•

Investigates the magnitude of intra-fraction prostate motion using real time monitoring.

•

A motion-time trend analysis was presented.

•

A duration-dependent margin was recommended.

•

Larger margins are required around the prostate in the inferior and posterior directions.

Background and purpose

During radiotherapy, prostate motion changes over time. Quantifying and accounting for this motion is essential. This study aimed to assess intra-fraction prostate motion and derive duration-dependent planning margins for two treatment techniques.

Material and methods

A four-dimension (4D) transperineal ultrasound Clarity® system was used to track prostate motion. We analysed 1913 fractions from 60 patients undergoing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the prostate. The mean VMAT treatment duration was 3.4 min. Extended monitoring was conducted weekly to simulate motion during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment (an additional seven minutes). A motion-time trend analysis was conducted and the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and IMRT treatments compared. Duration-dependent margins were calculated and anisotropic margins for VMAT and IMRT treatments were derived.

Results

There were statistically significant differences in the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and the simulated IMRT duration in the inferior (0.1 mm versus 0.3 mm) and posterior (−0.2 versus −0.4 mm) directions respectively (p ≪ 0.01). An intra-fraction motion trend inferiorly and posteriorly was observed. The recommended minimum anisotropic margins are 1.7 mm/2.7 mm (superior/inferior); 0.8 mm (left/right), 1.7 mm/2.9 mm (anterior/posterior) for VMAT treatments and 2.9 mm/4.3 mm (superior/inferior), 1.5 mm (left/right), 2.8 mm/4.8 mm (anterior/posterior) for IMRT treatments. Smaller anisotropic margins were required for VMAT compared to IMRT (differences ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm superiorly/inferiorly, 0.7 mm laterally and 1.1–1.9 mm anteriorly/posteriorly).

Conclusions

VMAT treatment is preferred over IMRT as prostate motion increases with time. Larger margins should be employed in the inferior and posterior directions for both treatment durations. Duration-dependent margins should be applied in the presence of prolonged imaging and verification time.

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.

Initial results for patient setup verification using transperineal ultrasound and cone beam CT in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of set up error detection by a transperineal ultrasound in comparison with a cone beam CT (CBCT) based system in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Setup verification was performed with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and CBCT for 10 patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. In total, 150 ultrasound and CBCT scans were acquired in rapid succession and analyzed for setup errors. The deviation between setup errors of the two modalities was evaluated separately for each dimension.

RESULTS

A moderate correlation in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction was observed comparing the setup errors. Mean differences between TPUS and CBCT were (-2.7 ± 2.3) mm, (3.0 ± 2.4) mm and (3.2 ± 2.7) mm in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction, respectively. The mean Euclidean difference between TPUS and CBCT was (6.0 ± 3.1) mm. Differences up to 19.2 mm were observed between the two imaging modalities. Discrepancies between TPUS and CBCT of at least 5 mm occurred in 58 % of monitored treatment sessions.

CONCLUSION

Setup differences between TPUS and CBCT are 6 mm on average. Although the correlation of the setup errors determined by the two different image modalities is rather week, the combination of setup verification by CBCT and intrafraction motion monitoring by TPUS imaging can use the benefits of both imaging modalities.