Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Geometry Based Transperineal Ultrasound Probe Positioning for Image Guided Radiotherapy

no image available
S Camps

S Camps1*, F Verhaegen2 , P de With1 , D Fontanarosa4 , (1) University of Technology Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (2) Maastro Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (3) Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands


SU-G-JeP3-5 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 5:00 PM - 5:30 PM Room: ePoster Theater

Purpose: The use of ultrasound (US) imaging in radiotherapy is not widespread, primarily due to the need for skilled operators performing the scans. Automation of probe positioning has the potential to remove this need and minimize operator dependence. We introduce an algorithm for obtaining a US probe position that allows good anatomical structure visualization based on clinical requirements. The first application is on 4D transperineal US images of prostate cancer patients.

Methods: The algorithm calculates the probe position and orientation using anatomical information provided by a reference CT scan, always available in radiotherapy workflows. As initial test, we apply the algorithm on a CIRS pelvic US phantom to obtain a set of possible probe positions. Subsequently, five of these positions are randomly chosen and used to acquire actual US volumes of the phantom. Visual inspection of these volumes reveal if the whole prostate, and adjacent edges of bladder and rectum are fully visualized, as clinically required. In addition, structure positions on the acquired US volumes are compared to predictions of the algorithm.

Results: All acquired volumes fulfill the clinical requirements as specified in the previous section. Preliminary quantitative evaluation was performed on thirty consecutive slices of two volumes, on which the structures are easily recognizable. The mean absolute distances (MAD) between actual anatomical structure positions and positions predicted by the algorithm were calculated. This resulted in MAD of 2.4±0.4 mm for prostate, 3.2±0.9 mm for bladder and 3.3±1.3 mm for rectum.

Conclusion: Visual inspection and quantitative evaluation show that the algorithm is able to propose probe positions that fulfill all clinical requirements. The obtained MAD is on average 2.9 mm. However, during evaluation we assumed no errors in structure segmentation and probe positioning. In future steps, accurate estimation of these errors will allow for better evaluation of the achieved accuracy.

Contact Email: