Evaluating the accuracy of the XVI dual registration tool compared with manual soft tissue matching to localise tumour volumes for post-prostatectomy patients receiving radiotherapy

Campbell, Amelia, Owen, Rebecca, Brown, Elizabeth, Pryor, David, Bernard, Anne and Lehman, Margot (2015) Evaluating the accuracy of the XVI dual registration tool compared with manual soft tissue matching to localise tumour volumes for post-prostatectomy patients receiving radiotherapy. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 59 4: 527-534. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12332


Author Campbell, Amelia
Owen, Rebecca
Brown, Elizabeth
Pryor, David
Bernard, Anne
Lehman, Margot
Title Evaluating the accuracy of the XVI dual registration tool compared with manual soft tissue matching to localise tumour volumes for post-prostatectomy patients receiving radiotherapy
Journal name Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1754-9485
1754-9477
Publication date 2015-06-24
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/1754-9485.12332
Open Access Status
Volume 59
Issue 4
Start page 527
End page 534
Total pages 8
Place of publication Richmond, VIC Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia
Collection year 2016
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Introduction:  Cone beam computerised tomography (CBCT) enables soft tissue visualisation to optimise matching in the post-prostatectomy setting, but is associated with inter-observer variability. This study assessed the accuracy and consistency of automated soft tissue localisation using XVI's dual registration tool (DRT).

Methods:  Sixty CBCT images from ten post-prostatectomy patients were matched using: (i) the DRT and (ii) manual soft tissue registration by six radiation therapists (RTs). Shifts in the three Cartesian planes were recorded. The accuracy of the match was determined by comparing shifts to matches performed by two genitourinary radiation oncologists (ROs). A Bland–Altman method was used to assess the 95% levels of agreement (LoA). A clinical threshold of 3 mm was used to define equivalence between methods of matching.

Results:  The 95% LoA between DRT-ROs in the superior/inferior, left/right and anterior/posterior directions were −2.21 to +3.18 mm, −0.77 to +0.84 mm, and −1.52 to +4.12 mm, respectively. The 95% LoA between RTs-ROs in the superior/inferior, left/right and anterior/posterior directions were −1.89 to +1.86 mm, −0.71 to +0.62 mm and −2.8 to +3.43 mm, respectively. Five DRT CBCT matches (8.33%) were outside the 3-mm threshold, all in the setting of bladder underfilling or rectal gas. The mean time for manual matching was 82 versus 65 s for DRT.

Conclusions:  XVI's DRT is comparable with RTs manually matching soft tissue on CBCT. The DRT can minimise RT inter-observer variability; however, involuntary bladder and rectal filling can influence the tools accuracy, highlighting the need for RT evaluation of the DRT match.
Keyword CBCT
IGRT
Radiation oncology
Post prostatectomy
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Early view of article.

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2016 Collection
Institute for Molecular Bioscience - Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 21 Jul 2015, 02:33:48 EST by System User on behalf of Scholarly Communication and Digitisation Service