Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization

Ryan D. Foster, Timothy D. Solberg, Haisen S. Li, Andrew Kerkhoff, Charles Arthur Enke, Twyla R. Willoughby, Patrick A. Kupelian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B-mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16,619 imaging sessions spanning seven years. Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound-based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3-4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-67
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of applied clinical medical physics
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

transponders
Transponders
Electromagnetic Phenomena
Calypso
Prostate
Ultrasonics
electromagnetism
Technology
Random errors
Systematic errors
thiacloprid
Skin
random errors
Clinical Trials
Imaging techniques
systematic errors
margins
methodology

Keywords

  • Electromagnetic transponders
  • Localization
  • Prostate
  • Ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Instrumentation
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization. / Foster, Ryan D.; Solberg, Timothy D.; Li, Haisen S.; Kerkhoff, Andrew; Enke, Charles Arthur; Willoughby, Twyla R.; Kupelian, Patrick A.

In: Journal of applied clinical medical physics, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2010, p. 57-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Foster, Ryan D. ; Solberg, Timothy D. ; Li, Haisen S. ; Kerkhoff, Andrew ; Enke, Charles Arthur ; Willoughby, Twyla R. ; Kupelian, Patrick A. / Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization. In: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2010 ; Vol. 11, No. 1. pp. 57-67.
@article{13265ec7a9624d698132d6409ed8188e,
title = "Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization",
abstract = "The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B-mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16,619 imaging sessions spanning seven years. Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound-based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3-4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization.",
keywords = "Electromagnetic transponders, Localization, Prostate, Ultrasound",
author = "Foster, {Ryan D.} and Solberg, {Timothy D.} and Li, {Haisen S.} and Andrew Kerkhoff and Enke, {Charles Arthur} and Willoughby, {Twyla R.} and Kupelian, {Patrick A.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "57--67",
journal = "Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization

AU - Foster, Ryan D.

AU - Solberg, Timothy D.

AU - Li, Haisen S.

AU - Kerkhoff, Andrew

AU - Enke, Charles Arthur

AU - Willoughby, Twyla R.

AU - Kupelian, Patrick A.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B-mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16,619 imaging sessions spanning seven years. Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound-based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3-4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization.

AB - The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B-mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16,619 imaging sessions spanning seven years. Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound-based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3-4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization.

KW - Electromagnetic transponders

KW - Localization

KW - Prostate

KW - Ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954267328&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954267328&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924

DO - 10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2924

M3 - Article

C2 - 20160686

AN - SCOPUS:77954267328

VL - 11

SP - 57

EP - 67

JO - Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics

JF - Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 1

ER -