Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28197655›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2017

Prefraction displacement and intrafraction drift of the prostate due to perineal ultrasound probe pressure.

Minglun Li, Nina-Sophie Hegemann, Farkhad Manapov, Anne Kolberg, Patrick Dominik Thum, Ute Ganswindt, Claus Belka, Hendrik Ballhausen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of transperineal ultrasound on perineal skin dose in prostate radiation therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Minglun LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Nina-Sophie HegemannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Farkhad ManapovDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Anne KolbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Patrick Dominik ThumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Ute GanswindtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Hendrik BallhausenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Hendrik.Ballhausen@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4733-1926
LMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn image-guided EBRT of the prostate, transperineal ultrasound (US) probes exert pressure on the perineum both during planning and treatment. Through tissue deformation and relaxation, this causes target and risk organ displacement and drift. In this study, prefraction shift and intrafraction drift of the prostate are quantified during robotic transperineal 4DUS.

methodsThe position of the prostate was recorded for different positions of the probe before treatment in 10 patients (16 series of measurements). During treatment (15 patients, 273 fractions), intrafraction motion of the prostate was tracked (total of 27 h and 24 min) with the transperineal probe in place.

resultsPer 1 mm shift of the US probe in the cranial direction, a displacement of the prostate by 0.42 ± 0.09 mm in the cranial direction was detected. The relationship was found to be linear (R² = 0.97) and highly significant (p < 0.0001). After initial contact of the probe and the perineum (no pressure), a shift of the probe of about 5-10 mm was typically necessary to achieve good image quality, corresponding to a shift of the prostate of about 2-4 mm in the cranial direction. Tissue compression and prostate displacement were well visible. During treatment, the prostate drifted at an average rate of 0.075 mm/min in the cranial direction (p = 0.0014).

conclusionThe pressure applied by a perineal US probe has a quantitatively similar impact on prostate displacement as transabdominal pressure. Shifts are predominantly in the cranial direction (typically 2-4 mm) with some component in the anterior direction (typically <1 mm). Slight probe pressure can improve image quality, but excessive probe pressure can distort the surrounding anatomy and potentially move risk organs closer to the high-dose area.

Indexed as

ArtifactsDose Fractionation, RadiationImage EnhancementPatient PositioningTransducersAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskPerineumPressureProstateProstatic NeoplasmsQuality Assurance, Health CareExternal beam radiotherapyIntrafraction motionPatient positioningQuality assuranceTransperineal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID28197655
OpenAlexW2587986157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.