Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jan 24:2018:7569590.
doi: 10.1155/2018/7569590. eCollection 2018.

The Use of Ultrasound Imaging in the External Beam Radiotherapy Workflow of Prostate Cancer Patients

Saskia M Camps  1   2 , Davide Fontanarosa  3   4   5 , Peter H N de With  1 , Frank Verhaegen  5 , Ben G L Vanneste  5
Affiliations
Review

The Use of Ultrasound Imaging in the External Beam Radiotherapy Workflow of Prostate Cancer Patients

Saskia M Camps et al. Biomed Res Int. .

Abstract

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is one of the curative treatment options for prostate cancer patients. The aim of this treatment option is to irradiate tumor tissue, while sparing normal tissue as much as possible. Frequent imaging during the course of the treatment (image guided radiotherapy) allows for determination of the location and shape of the prostate (target) and of the organs at risk. This information is used to increase accuracy in radiation dose delivery resulting in better tumor control and lower toxicity. Ultrasound imaging is harmless for the patient, it is cost-effective, and it allows for real-time volumetric organ tracking. For these reasons, it is an ideal technique for image guidance during EBRT workflows. Review papers have been published in which the use of ultrasound imaging in EBRT workflows for different cancer sites (prostate, breast, etc.) was extensively covered. This new review paper aims at providing the readers with an update on the current status for prostate cancer ultrasound guided EBRT treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Typical RT workflow for prostate cancer patients. During the simulation stage, fiducial markers are implanted in the prostate, images of the patient's anatomy are acquired, and a treatment plan is designed. Subsequently, the dose is delivered to the patient in several treatment fractions, while ensuring that the patient is set up as accurately as possible.
Figure 2
Figure 2
US probe setup using three US imaging techniques. (a) TRUS, (b) TAUS, and (c) TPUS with the yellow beam indicating a possible location of a radiation beam during a treatment fraction.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Three US techniques suitable for prostate and OARs imaging (a) TRUS, (b) TAUS, and (c) TPUS, with (A) prostate, (B) bladder, and (C) rectum which can partially be seen.
Figure 4
Figure 4
RT workflow of prostate cancer patients with US imaging implemented at several steps. The fiducial marker implantation is currently performed under TRUS guidance. The acquisition of the reference TAUS or TPUS images at simulation stage and also the acquisition of TAUS and TPUS prior to dose delivery can provide valuable information for interfraction prostate motion correction. Finally, during dose delivery TPUS imaging could provide information on intrafraction prostate motion.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Clarity Autoscan system setup with (a) probe and (b) baseplate.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fitzmaurice C., Allen C., Barber R. M., et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncology. 2017;3(4):524–548. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Torre L. A., Siegel R. L., Ward E. M., Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends—an update. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2016;25(1):16–27. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0578. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vanneste B. G. L., Van Limbergen E. J., Van Lin E. N., Van Roermund J. G. H., Lambin P. Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know? BioMed Research International. 2016;2016 doi: 10.1155/2016/6829875.6829875 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zelefsky M. J., Kollmeier M., Cox B., et al. Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics. 2012;84(1):125–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.047. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sveistrup J., af Rosenschöld P. M., Deasy J. O., et al. Improvement in toxicity in high risk prostate cancer patients treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy without daily image guidance. Journal of Radiation Oncology. 2014;9(1, article 44) doi: 10.1186/1748-717x-9-44. - DOI - PMC - PubMed