TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of gold fiducial marker manual localisation for magnetic resonance-only prostate radiotherapy
AU - Maspero, M
AU - Seevinck, PR
AU - Willems, Nicole J W
AU - Sikkes, Gonda G
AU - de Kogel, Geja J
AU - de Boer, JCJ
AU - van der Voort van Zyp, JRN
AU - van den Berg, CAT
PY - 2018/6/5
Y1 - 2018/6/5
N2 - Background: The use of intraprostatic gold fiducial markers (FMs) ensures highly accurate and precise image-guided radiation therapy for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer thanks to the ease of localising FMs on photon-based imaging, like Computed Tomography (CT) images. Recently, Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy has been proposed to simplify the workflow and reduce possible systematic uncertainties. A critical, determining factor in the accuracy of such an MR-only simulation will be accurate FM localisation using solely MR images. Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the performances of manual MR-based FM localisation within a clinical environment. Methods: We designed a study in which 5 clinically involved radiation therapy technicians (RTTs) independently localised the gold FMs implanted in 16 prostate cancer patients in two scenarios: employing a single MR sequence or a combination of sequences. Inter-observer precision and accuracy were assessed for the two scenarios for localisation in terms of 95% limit of agreement on single FMs (LoA)/ centre of mass (LoA
CM) and inter-marker distances (IDs), respectively. Results: The number of precisely located FMs (LoA <2 mm) increased from 38/48 to 45/48 FMs when localisation was performed using multiple sequences instead of single one. When performing localisation on multiple sequences, imprecise localisation of the FMs (3/48 FMs) occurred for 1/3 implanted FMs in three different patients. In terms of precision, we obtained LoA
CM within 0.25 mm in all directions over the precisely located FMs. In terms of accuracy, IDs difference of manual MR-based localisation versus CT-based localisation was on average (±1 STD) 0.6 ±0.6 mm. Conclusions: For both the investigated scenarios, the results indicate that when FM classification was correct, the precision and accuracy are high and comparable to CT-based FM localisation. We found that use of multiple sequences led to better localisation performances compared with the use of single sequence. However, we observed that, due to the presence of calcification and motion, the risk of mislocated patient positioning is still too high to allow the sole use of manual FM localisation. Finally, strategies to possibly overcome the current challenges were proposed.
AB - Background: The use of intraprostatic gold fiducial markers (FMs) ensures highly accurate and precise image-guided radiation therapy for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer thanks to the ease of localising FMs on photon-based imaging, like Computed Tomography (CT) images. Recently, Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy has been proposed to simplify the workflow and reduce possible systematic uncertainties. A critical, determining factor in the accuracy of such an MR-only simulation will be accurate FM localisation using solely MR images. Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the performances of manual MR-based FM localisation within a clinical environment. Methods: We designed a study in which 5 clinically involved radiation therapy technicians (RTTs) independently localised the gold FMs implanted in 16 prostate cancer patients in two scenarios: employing a single MR sequence or a combination of sequences. Inter-observer precision and accuracy were assessed for the two scenarios for localisation in terms of 95% limit of agreement on single FMs (LoA)/ centre of mass (LoA
CM) and inter-marker distances (IDs), respectively. Results: The number of precisely located FMs (LoA <2 mm) increased from 38/48 to 45/48 FMs when localisation was performed using multiple sequences instead of single one. When performing localisation on multiple sequences, imprecise localisation of the FMs (3/48 FMs) occurred for 1/3 implanted FMs in three different patients. In terms of precision, we obtained LoA
CM within 0.25 mm in all directions over the precisely located FMs. In terms of accuracy, IDs difference of manual MR-based localisation versus CT-based localisation was on average (±1 STD) 0.6 ±0.6 mm. Conclusions: For both the investigated scenarios, the results indicate that when FM classification was correct, the precision and accuracy are high and comparable to CT-based FM localisation. We found that use of multiple sequences led to better localisation performances compared with the use of single sequence. However, we observed that, due to the presence of calcification and motion, the risk of mislocated patient positioning is still too high to allow the sole use of manual FM localisation. Finally, strategies to possibly overcome the current challenges were proposed.
KW - MRI
KW - IGRT
KW - Radiotherapy
KW - MR-only Radiotherapy
KW - Radiotherapy treatment planning
KW - Accuracy
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Precision
KW - Pre-treatment positioning
KW - Fiducial marker localization
KW - Manual detection
KW - MR-only treatment planning
KW - Fiducial Markers
KW - Patient Positioning
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Male
KW - Tomography, X-Ray Computed
KW - Radiotherapy, Image-Guided/methods
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
KW - Gold
KW - Prostate/diagnostic imaging
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging
KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging
KW - Aged
KW - Observer Variation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048111731&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13014-018-1029-7
DO - 10.1186/s13014-018-1029-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 29871656
SN - 1748-717X
VL - 13
SP - 105
JO - Radiation Oncology [E]
JF - Radiation Oncology [E]
IS - 1
M1 - 105
ER -