影像引导放射治疗(IGRT)锥束CT与超声系统治疗前列腺癌的比较

B. Tas, I. Durmuş, S. Ozturk
{"title":"影像引导放射治疗(IGRT)锥束CT与超声系统治疗前列腺癌的比较","authors":"B. Tas, I. Durmuş, S. Ozturk","doi":"10.13189/UJPA.2016.100402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to evaluate two different Image Guided RadioTherapy (IGRT) methods during 38 fractions of one prostate cancer patient's treatment. Prostate cancer patient was scanned 3.0mm width by Siemens Biograph mCT and Elekta Clarity® Ultrasound system with transabdominal probe. Critical organs and targets were determined from fusion of these images on the CT data set. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning were performed by using Monaco 5.1® treatment planning system. Reference images of CT scan and ultrasound images were sent to Elekta Versa HD® linear accelerator's treatment system. Before the prostate cancer patient's treatment, we had scanned prostate localization by Elekta Clarity® Ultrasound system. Then we compared ultrasound images with reference images and we adjusted position of couch. For checking the localization of prostate, we scanned patient by XVI 4.5 Cone Beam CT system and we determined the difference between Ultrasound scan and Cone Beam CT scan an average 2.8±1.6mm lateral direction, 2.9±1.1mm longitudinal direction and 2.6±1.4mm vertical direction during 38 fractions of treatment. The results show that comparison between Clarity® Ultrasound system and Cone Beam CT system less than 3.0mm in three directions. Therefore, we are treating prostate cancer patient with ultrasound IGRT method instead of Cone Beam CT scan method in our clinic.","PeriodicalId":23443,"journal":{"name":"Universal Journal of Physics and Application","volume":"118 1","pages":"110-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) Comparison between Cone Beam CT and Ultrasound System for Prostate Cancer\",\"authors\":\"B. Tas, I. Durmuş, S. Ozturk\",\"doi\":\"10.13189/UJPA.2016.100402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study is to evaluate two different Image Guided RadioTherapy (IGRT) methods during 38 fractions of one prostate cancer patient's treatment. Prostate cancer patient was scanned 3.0mm width by Siemens Biograph mCT and Elekta Clarity® Ultrasound system with transabdominal probe. Critical organs and targets were determined from fusion of these images on the CT data set. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning were performed by using Monaco 5.1® treatment planning system. Reference images of CT scan and ultrasound images were sent to Elekta Versa HD® linear accelerator's treatment system. Before the prostate cancer patient's treatment, we had scanned prostate localization by Elekta Clarity® Ultrasound system. Then we compared ultrasound images with reference images and we adjusted position of couch. For checking the localization of prostate, we scanned patient by XVI 4.5 Cone Beam CT system and we determined the difference between Ultrasound scan and Cone Beam CT scan an average 2.8±1.6mm lateral direction, 2.9±1.1mm longitudinal direction and 2.6±1.4mm vertical direction during 38 fractions of treatment. The results show that comparison between Clarity® Ultrasound system and Cone Beam CT system less than 3.0mm in three directions. Therefore, we are treating prostate cancer patient with ultrasound IGRT method instead of Cone Beam CT scan method in our clinic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Universal Journal of Physics and Application\",\"volume\":\"118 1\",\"pages\":\"110-114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Universal Journal of Physics and Application\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13189/UJPA.2016.100402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Universal Journal of Physics and Application","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13189/UJPA.2016.100402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究的目的是评估两种不同的图像引导放射治疗(IGRT)方法在一个前列腺癌患者治疗的38个部分。前列腺癌患者采用西门子Biograph mCT和Elekta Clarity®超声系统经腹探头,扫描宽度为3.0mm。将这些图像融合到CT数据集上,确定关键器官和目标。使用Monaco 5.1®治疗计划系统进行体积调制弧线治疗(VMAT)计划。CT扫描和超声图像的参考图像被发送到Elekta Versa HD®直线加速器的处理系统。在前列腺癌患者治疗前,我们使用Elekta Clarity®超声系统扫描前列腺定位。然后将超声图像与参考图像进行比较,调整沙发的位置。为了检查前列腺的定位,我们使用XVI 4.5锥束CT系统对患者进行了扫描,并测定了超声扫描与锥束CT扫描在38次治疗期间平均横向2.8±1.6mm、纵向2.9±1.1mm和纵向2.6±1.4mm的差异。结果表明,Clarity®超声系统与小于3.0mm的锥束CT系统在三个方向上的比较。因此,我们在临床采用超声IGRT方法治疗前列腺癌患者,而不是锥形束CT扫描方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) Comparison between Cone Beam CT and Ultrasound System for Prostate Cancer
The aim of this study is to evaluate two different Image Guided RadioTherapy (IGRT) methods during 38 fractions of one prostate cancer patient's treatment. Prostate cancer patient was scanned 3.0mm width by Siemens Biograph mCT and Elekta Clarity® Ultrasound system with transabdominal probe. Critical organs and targets were determined from fusion of these images on the CT data set. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning were performed by using Monaco 5.1® treatment planning system. Reference images of CT scan and ultrasound images were sent to Elekta Versa HD® linear accelerator's treatment system. Before the prostate cancer patient's treatment, we had scanned prostate localization by Elekta Clarity® Ultrasound system. Then we compared ultrasound images with reference images and we adjusted position of couch. For checking the localization of prostate, we scanned patient by XVI 4.5 Cone Beam CT system and we determined the difference between Ultrasound scan and Cone Beam CT scan an average 2.8±1.6mm lateral direction, 2.9±1.1mm longitudinal direction and 2.6±1.4mm vertical direction during 38 fractions of treatment. The results show that comparison between Clarity® Ultrasound system and Cone Beam CT system less than 3.0mm in three directions. Therefore, we are treating prostate cancer patient with ultrasound IGRT method instead of Cone Beam CT scan method in our clinic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信