ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2016
Initial results for patient setup verification using transperineal ultrasound and cone beam CT in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- From CBCT to MR-Linac in Image-Guided Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy Towards Treatment Personalization.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Physician reported toxicities and patient reported quality of life of transperineal ultrasound-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Synthetic CT generation based on CBCT using improved vision transformer CycleGAN.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Factors affecting accuracy and precision in ultrasound guided radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: updated long-term outcome and toxicity analysis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- An ultrasound based platform for image-guided radiotherapy in canine bladder cancer patients.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Analyses of the factors influencing the accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in comparison with cone-beam CT in image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer with or without pelvic lymph node irradiation.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- A patient-specific three-dimensional couplant pad for ultrasound image-guided radiation therapy: a feasibility study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- The Use of Ultrasound Imaging in the External Beam Radiotherapy Workflow of Prostate Cancer Patients.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- The more IGRT systems, the merrier?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation 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.
methodsSetup 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionSetup 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.