Comparison of low‐dose, half‐rotation, cone‐beam CT with electronic portal imaging device for registration of fiducial markers during prostate radiotherapy

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Vol. 14; no. 4; pp. 171 - 181
• Main Authors: Ung, Ngie Min, Wee, Leonard, Hackett, Sara Lyons, Jones, Andrew, Lim, Tee Sin, Harper, Christopher Stirling
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 08.07.2013; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Accuracy; Algorithms; CBCT; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Electrical Equipment and Supplies; EPID; Fiducial Markers; Humans; IGRT; Localization; Male; Patients; prostate; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Radiation Oncology Physics; Radiation therapy; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - statistics & numerical data; Registration; Rotation; Studies; Tomography
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4249

This study evaluated the agreement of fiducial marker localization between two modalities — an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) — using a low‐dose, half‐rotation scanning protocol. Twenty‐five prostate cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were enrolled. Before each daily treatment, EPID and half‐rotation CBCT images were acquired. Translational shifts were computed for each modality and two marker‐matching algorithms, seed‐chamfer and grey‐value, were performed for each set of CBCT images. The localization offsets, and systematic and random errors from both modalities were computed. Localization performances for both modalities were compared using Bland‐Altman limits of agreement (LoA) analysis, Deming regression analysis, and Cohen's kappa inter‐rater analysis. The differences in the systematic and random errors between the modalities were within 0.2 mm in all directions. The LoA analysis revealed a 95% agreement limit of the modalities of 2 to 3.5 mm in any given translational direction. Deming regression analysis demonstrated that constant biases existed in the shifts computed by the modalities in the superior–inferior (SI) direction, but no significant proportional biases were identified in any direction. Cohen's kappa analysis showed good agreement between the modalities in prescribing translational corrections of the couch at 3 and 5 mm action levels. Images obtained from EPID and half‐rotation CBCT showed acceptable agreement for registration of fiducial markers. The seed‐chamfer algorithm for tracking of fiducial markers in CBCT datasets yielded better agreement than the grey‐value matching algorithm with EPID‐based registration. PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr