Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMason, SA
dc.contributor.authorWhite, IM
dc.contributor.authorO'Shea, T
dc.contributor.authorMcNair, HA
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, S
dc.contributor.authorKalaitzaki, E
dc.contributor.authorBamber, JC
dc.contributor.authorHarris, EJ
dc.contributor.authorLalondrelle, S
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-16T11:02:02Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-01
dc.identifier.citationInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2019, 104 (3), pp. 685 - 693
dc.identifier.issn0360-3016
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/3184
dc.identifier.eissn1879-355X
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.003
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: Adaptive radiation therapy strategies could account for interfractional uterine motion observed in patients with cervix cancer, but the current cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based treatment workflow is limited by poor soft-tissue contrast. The goal of the present study was to determine if ultrasound (US) could be used to improve visualization of the uterus, either as a single modality or in combination with CBCT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Interobserver uterine contour agreement and confidence were compared on 40 corresponding CBCT, US, and CBCT-US-fused images from 11 patients with cervix cancer. Contour agreement was measured using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean contour-to-contour distance (MCCD). Observers rated their contour confidence on a scale from 1 to 10. Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to measure differences in contour agreement and confidence. RESULTS: CBCT-US fused images had significantly better contour agreement and confidence than either individual modality (P < .05), with median (interquartile range [IQR]) values of 0.84 (0.11), 1.26 (0.23) mm, and 7 (2) for the DSC, MCCD, and observer confidence ratings, respectively. Contour agreement was similar between US and CBCT, with median (IQR) DSCs of 0.81 (0.17) and 0.82 (0.14) and MCCDs of 1.75 (1.15) mm and 1.62 (0.74) mm. Observers were significantly more confident in their US-based contours than in their CBCT-based contours (P < .05), with median (IQR) confidence ratings of 7 (2.75) versus 5 (4). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT and US are complementary and improve uterine segmentation precision when combined. Observers could localize the uterus with a similar precision on independent US and CBCT images.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent685 - 693
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectCervix Uteri
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectObserver Variation
dc.subjectUltrasonography
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
dc.subjectStatistics, Nonparametric
dc.subjectSelf Concept
dc.subjectReference Standards
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectUterine Cervical Neoplasms
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectUrinary Bladder
dc.subjectCone-Beam Computed Tomography
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Image-Guided
dc.subjectMultimodal Imaging
dc.titleCombined Ultrasound and Cone Beam CT Improves Target Segmentation for Image Guided Radiation Therapy in Uterine Cervix Cancer.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-03-03
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.003
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-07
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
pubs.issue3
pubs.notesNo embargo
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Gynaecological Cancer
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Gynaecological Cancer/Gynaecological Cancer (hon.)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Imaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Ultrasound & Optical Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Gynaecological Cancer
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Gynaecological Cancer/Gynaecological Cancer (hon.)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Imaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Ultrasound & Optical Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume104
pubs.embargo.termsNo embargo
icr.researchteamClinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
icr.researchteamGynaecological Cancer
icr.researchteamImaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
icr.researchteamUltrasound & Optical Imaging
dc.contributor.icrauthorWhite, Ingrid
dc.contributor.icrauthorBamber, Jeffrey
dc.contributor.icrauthorHarris, Emma


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0