Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcNair, HA
dc.contributor.authorHarris, EJ
dc.contributor.authorHansen, VN
dc.contributor.authorThomas, K
dc.contributor.authorSouth, C
dc.contributor.authorHafeez, S
dc.contributor.authorHuddart, R
dc.contributor.authorDearnaley, DP
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-01T11:40:55Z
dc.date.issued2015-10-01
dc.identifier.citationThe British journal of radiology, 2015, 88 (1054), pp. 20150208 - ?
dc.identifier.issn0007-1285
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/422
dc.identifier.eissn1748-880X
dc.identifier.doi10.1259/bjr.20150208
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Cone beam CT (CBCT) enables soft-tissue registration to planning CT for position verification in radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the interobserver error (IOE) in prostate position verification using a standard CBCT protocol, and the effect of reducing CBCT scan length or increasing exposure, compared with standard imaging protocol. METHODS: CBCT images were acquired using a novel 7 cm length image with standard exposure (1644 mAs) at Fraction 1 (7), standard 12 cm length image (1644 mAs) at Fraction 2 (12) and a 7 cm length image with higher exposure (2632 mAs) at Fraction 3 (7H) on 31 patients receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Eight observers (two clinicians and six radiographers) registered the images. Guidelines and training were provided. The means of the IOEs were compared using a Kruzkal-Wallis test. Levene's test was used to test for differences in the variances of the IOEs and the independent prostate position. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the IOEs of each image protocol in any direction. Mean absolute IOE was the greatest in the anteroposterior direction. Standard deviation (SD) of the IOE was the least in the left-right direction for each of the three image protocols. The SD of the IOE was significantly less than the independent prostate motion in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction only (1.8 and 3.0 mm, respectively: p = 0.017). IOEs were within 1 SD of the independent prostate motion in 95%, 77% and 96% of the images in the RL, SI and AP direction. CONCLUSION: Reducing CBCT scan length and increasing exposure did not have a significant effect on IOEs. To reduce imaging dose, a reduction in CBCT scan length could be considered without increasing the uncertainty in prostate registration. Precision of CBCT verification of prostate radiotherapy is affected by IOE and should be quantified prior to implementation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study shows the importance of quantifying the magnitude of IOEs prior to CBCT implementation.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent20150208 - ?
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectProstate
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasms
dc.subjectObserver Variation
dc.subjectRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectMotion
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectCone-Beam Computed Tomography
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Image-Guided
dc.titleMagnitude of observer error using cone beam CT for prostate interfraction motion estimation: effect of reducing scan length or increasing exposure.
dc.typeJournal Article
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1259/bjr.20150208
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-10
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfThe British journal of radiology
pubs.issue1054
pubs.notesNot known
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/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Huddart)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Imaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
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/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Huddart)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Imaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume88
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamClinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
icr.researchteamClinical Academic Radiotherapy (Huddart)
icr.researchteamImaging for Radiotherapy Adaptation
dc.contributor.icrauthorHarris, Emma
dc.contributor.icrauthorHafeez, Shaista
dc.contributor.icrauthorHuddart, Robert
dc.contributor.icrauthorDearnaley, David


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