Search

Introduction The prostatic urethra is an organ at risk for prostate radiotherapy with genitourinary toxicities a common side effect. Many external beam radiation therapy protocols call for urethral sparing, and with modulated radiotherapy techniques, the radiation dose distribution can be controlled so that maximum doses do not fall within the prostatic urethral volume. Whilst traditional diagnostic MRI sequences provide excellent delineation of the prostate, uncertainty often remains as to the true path of the urethra within the gland. This study aims to assess if a high‐resolution isotropic 3D T2 MRI series can reduce inter‐observer variability in urethral delineation for radiotherapy planning. Methods Five independent observers contoured the prostatic urethra for ten patients on three data sets; a 2 mm axial CT, a diagnostic 3 mm axial T2 TSE MRI and a 0.9 mm isotropic 3D T2 SPACE MRI. The observers were blinded from each other’s contours. A Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) score was calculated using the intersection and union of the five observer contours vs an expert reference contour for each data set. Results The mean DSC of the observer vs reference contours was 0.47 for CT, 0.62 for T2 TSE and 0.78 for T2 SPACE (P, Whilst traditional diagnostic MRI sequences provide excellent delineation of the prostate, uncertainty often remains as to the true path of the urethra within the gland. This study aims to assess if a high resolution isotropic 3D T2 MRI series can reduce inter‐observer variability in urethral delineation for radiotherapy planning.

© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine Purpose: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) allows for real-time image guidance for tracking tumor motion in six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) on a standard linear accelerator. This study assessed the geometric accuracy and precision of KIM used to guide patient treatments in the TROG 15.01 multi-institutional Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM trial and investigated factors affecting accuracy and precision. Methods: Fractions from 44 patients with prostate cancer treated using KIM-guided SBRT were analyzed across four institutions, on two different linear accelerator models and two different beam models (6 MV and 10 MV FFF). The geometric accuracy and precision of KIM was assessed from over 33 000 images (translation) and over 9000 images (rotation) by comparing the real-time measured motion to retrospective kV/MV triangulation. Factors potentially affecting accuracy, including contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of kV images and incorrect marker segmentation, were also investigated. Results: The geometric accuracy and precision did not depend on treatment institution, beam model or motion magnitude, but was correlated with gantry angle. The centroid geometric accuracy and precision of the KIM system for SABR prostate treatments was 0.0 ± 0.5, 0.0 ± 0.4 and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm for translation, and −0.1 ± 0.6°, −0.1 ± 1.4° and −0.1 ± 1.0° for rotation in the AP, LR and SI directions respectively. Centroid geometric error exceeded 2 mm for 0.05% of this dataset. No significant relationship was found between large geometric error and CNR or marker segmentation correlation. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the ability of KIM to locate the prostate with accuracy below other uncertainties in radiotherapy treatments, and the feasibility for KIM to be implemented across multiple institutions.