Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting

Inter-user variability

Martin Fuss, Sean X. Cavanaugh, Cristina Fuss, Dennis A. Cheek, Bill J. Salter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We analyzed the inter-user variability of patient setup for prostate radiotherapy using a stereotactic ultrasound-targeting device. Setup variations in 20 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Users were a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, four radiation technologists (RTT) and a radiologist. The radiation oncologist, radiologist, physicist and two RTTs were experienced users of the system (> months of experience); two RTTs were users new to the system. Gold standard for this analysis was a control CT acquired immediately following ultrasound targeting. For inter-user variability assessments, the radiation oncologist provided a set of axial and sagittal freeze-frames (standard freeze-frames) for virtual targeting by all users. Additionally each user acquired individual freeze-frames for target alignments. We analyzed the range of virtual setups in each patient along the principal room axes based on standard and individual freeze-frames. The magnitude of residual setup error and percentage of setup change for each user was assessed by control CT/planning CT comparison with individual virtual shifts. A total of 184 alignments were analyzed. The range of virtual shifts between users was 2.7±1.4, 3.6±1.1, and 4.4±1.4 mm (mean±SD) in x, y and z-direction for setups based on standard freeze-frames and 3.9±2.6, 6.0±4.7, and 5.4±2.7 mm for setups based on individual freeze-frames. When only virtual shifts of experienced users were analyzed, the mean ranges were reduced by up to 2.4 mm. Average magnitude of initial setup error before ultrasound targeting was 14.3 mm. Average improvement of prostate setup was 63.1±23.4% in experienced and 35.14±37.7% in inexperienced users, respectively (p

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)161-169
Number of pages9
JournalTechnology in Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume2
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Radiation
Equipment and Supplies
Radiation Oncologists
Radiologists

Keywords

  • IMRT
  • Inter-user variability
  • Patient positioning
  • Prostate cancer
  • Ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Fuss, M., Cavanaugh, S. X., Fuss, C., Cheek, D. A., & Salter, B. J. (2003). Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting: Inter-user variability. Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, 2(2), 161-169.

Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting : Inter-user variability. / Fuss, Martin; Cavanaugh, Sean X.; Fuss, Cristina; Cheek, Dennis A.; Salter, Bill J.

In: Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 2, No. 2, 04.2003, p. 161-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fuss, M, Cavanaugh, SX, Fuss, C, Cheek, DA & Salter, BJ 2003, 'Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting: Inter-user variability', Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 161-169.
Fuss, Martin ; Cavanaugh, Sean X. ; Fuss, Cristina ; Cheek, Dennis A. ; Salter, Bill J. / Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting : Inter-user variability. In: Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment. 2003 ; Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 161-169.
@article{e87ca2d8899e41bf9bb83426ca86e479,
title = "Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting: Inter-user variability",
abstract = "We analyzed the inter-user variability of patient setup for prostate radiotherapy using a stereotactic ultrasound-targeting device. Setup variations in 20 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Users were a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, four radiation technologists (RTT) and a radiologist. The radiation oncologist, radiologist, physicist and two RTTs were experienced users of the system (> months of experience); two RTTs were users new to the system. Gold standard for this analysis was a control CT acquired immediately following ultrasound targeting. For inter-user variability assessments, the radiation oncologist provided a set of axial and sagittal freeze-frames (standard freeze-frames) for virtual targeting by all users. Additionally each user acquired individual freeze-frames for target alignments. We analyzed the range of virtual setups in each patient along the principal room axes based on standard and individual freeze-frames. The magnitude of residual setup error and percentage of setup change for each user was assessed by control CT/planning CT comparison with individual virtual shifts. A total of 184 alignments were analyzed. The range of virtual shifts between users was 2.7±1.4, 3.6±1.1, and 4.4±1.4 mm (mean±SD) in x, y and z-direction for setups based on standard freeze-frames and 3.9±2.6, 6.0±4.7, and 5.4±2.7 mm for setups based on individual freeze-frames. When only virtual shifts of experienced users were analyzed, the mean ranges were reduced by up to 2.4 mm. Average magnitude of initial setup error before ultrasound targeting was 14.3 mm. Average improvement of prostate setup was 63.1±23.4{\%} in experienced and 35.14±37.7{\%} in inexperienced users, respectively (p",
keywords = "IMRT, Inter-user variability, Patient positioning, Prostate cancer, Ultrasound",
author = "Martin Fuss and Cavanaugh, {Sean X.} and Cristina Fuss and Cheek, {Dennis A.} and Salter, {Bill J.}",
year = "2003",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "161--169",
journal = "Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "1533-0346",
publisher = "Adenine Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Daily stereotactic ultrasound prostate targeting

T2 - Inter-user variability

AU - Fuss, Martin

AU - Cavanaugh, Sean X.

AU - Fuss, Cristina

AU - Cheek, Dennis A.

AU - Salter, Bill J.

PY - 2003/4

Y1 - 2003/4

N2 - We analyzed the inter-user variability of patient setup for prostate radiotherapy using a stereotactic ultrasound-targeting device. Setup variations in 20 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Users were a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, four radiation technologists (RTT) and a radiologist. The radiation oncologist, radiologist, physicist and two RTTs were experienced users of the system (> months of experience); two RTTs were users new to the system. Gold standard for this analysis was a control CT acquired immediately following ultrasound targeting. For inter-user variability assessments, the radiation oncologist provided a set of axial and sagittal freeze-frames (standard freeze-frames) for virtual targeting by all users. Additionally each user acquired individual freeze-frames for target alignments. We analyzed the range of virtual setups in each patient along the principal room axes based on standard and individual freeze-frames. The magnitude of residual setup error and percentage of setup change for each user was assessed by control CT/planning CT comparison with individual virtual shifts. A total of 184 alignments were analyzed. The range of virtual shifts between users was 2.7±1.4, 3.6±1.1, and 4.4±1.4 mm (mean±SD) in x, y and z-direction for setups based on standard freeze-frames and 3.9±2.6, 6.0±4.7, and 5.4±2.7 mm for setups based on individual freeze-frames. When only virtual shifts of experienced users were analyzed, the mean ranges were reduced by up to 2.4 mm. Average magnitude of initial setup error before ultrasound targeting was 14.3 mm. Average improvement of prostate setup was 63.1±23.4% in experienced and 35.14±37.7% in inexperienced users, respectively (p

AB - We analyzed the inter-user variability of patient setup for prostate radiotherapy using a stereotactic ultrasound-targeting device. Setup variations in 20 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Users were a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, four radiation technologists (RTT) and a radiologist. The radiation oncologist, radiologist, physicist and two RTTs were experienced users of the system (> months of experience); two RTTs were users new to the system. Gold standard for this analysis was a control CT acquired immediately following ultrasound targeting. For inter-user variability assessments, the radiation oncologist provided a set of axial and sagittal freeze-frames (standard freeze-frames) for virtual targeting by all users. Additionally each user acquired individual freeze-frames for target alignments. We analyzed the range of virtual setups in each patient along the principal room axes based on standard and individual freeze-frames. The magnitude of residual setup error and percentage of setup change for each user was assessed by control CT/planning CT comparison with individual virtual shifts. A total of 184 alignments were analyzed. The range of virtual shifts between users was 2.7±1.4, 3.6±1.1, and 4.4±1.4 mm (mean±SD) in x, y and z-direction for setups based on standard freeze-frames and 3.9±2.6, 6.0±4.7, and 5.4±2.7 mm for setups based on individual freeze-frames. When only virtual shifts of experienced users were analyzed, the mean ranges were reduced by up to 2.4 mm. Average magnitude of initial setup error before ultrasound targeting was 14.3 mm. Average improvement of prostate setup was 63.1±23.4% in experienced and 35.14±37.7% in inexperienced users, respectively (p

KW - IMRT

KW - Inter-user variability

KW - Patient positioning

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037654655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037654655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 161

EP - 169

JO - Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 1533-0346

IS - 2

ER -