2017
DOI: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.64035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Technical Note: Inter-Observer and Inter-Modality Variability of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Ultrasound (US) in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Kidney Cancer

Abstract: Introduction: To investigate the inter-observer and inter-modality variabilities of two imaging guided equipments-cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and ultrasound (US) in kidney stereotactic body radiotherapy. Methods: A renal metastasis case implanted with three gold anchor fiducial markers was firstly scanned by US to acquire a 3-dimension US image and followed by 4-dimension CBCT in every fraction. Seven observers retrospectively registered the pre-treatment images with the corresponding reference images… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
(16 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) can be challenging due to poor contrast within the abdomen, especially with motion-associated artifacts [1] . Uncertainties in CBCT matching can lead to variation in overall match between users which can lead to an increase in the length of time before treatment delivery [2] . The time interval between imaging and treatment delivery should be kept as short as possible to minimise the risk of intrafraction motion changes [3] , [4] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) can be challenging due to poor contrast within the abdomen, especially with motion-associated artifacts [1] . Uncertainties in CBCT matching can lead to variation in overall match between users which can lead to an increase in the length of time before treatment delivery [2] . The time interval between imaging and treatment delivery should be kept as short as possible to minimise the risk of intrafraction motion changes [3] , [4] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%