Comment on “Magnetically‐assisted remote control (MARC) steering of endovascular catheters for interventional MRI: A model for deflection and design implications”

Tunay, I.; Ritter, R. C.

doi:10.1118/1.2815932

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Direct imaging of the prostate gland and daily verification of its position during each treatment session is essential for reducing the margins and, consequently, avoiding the organs at risk such as rectum and bladder. Several image guidance methods have been investigated in recent years, including tumor tracking with intraprostatic fiducial markers, cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ultrasound‐based imaging (US‐image guidance) 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . Ultrasound‐based systems are volumetric and offer better soft‐tissue visualization compared to CBCT, without additional exposure to ionizing radiations (9) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultrasound‐based systems are volumetric and offer better soft‐tissue visualization compared to CBCT, without additional exposure to ionizing radiations (9) . Several studies have shown that US‐based IGRT represents a reliable system for image guidance; 3 , 7 , 8 various other technical solutions may be used for ultrasound IGRT in clinical practice, either based on intramodality or cross‐modality verification methods (3) . Concerning other image guidance methods, optimal imaging may depend on the operators' experience 10 , 11 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of the observers' experience on daily prostate localization accuracy in ultrasound‐based IGRT with the Clarity platform

Fiandra

Guarneri

Muñoz

et al. 2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of daily prostate localization with ultrasound imaging of various radiation oncologists with nonhomogeneous expertise. For ten patients who underwent radical radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, 11 radiation oncologists reviewed daily ultrasound scans acquired during three different treatment sessions. The average values of two senior radiation oncologists, considered to be expert observers, were selected as reference. The remaining nine observers were divided into two groups, Group 1 and Group 2, with more and less than one year of experience, respectively. The recorded shifts in prostate position were divided in three classes: <3 mm, 3–5 mm, and > 5 mm. Deviations from reference were less than 3 mm in all directions in 91% and 81% of measurements in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The maximum difference in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) was reported for superior‐inferior (SI) direction, in particular a mean difference of 3.24 mm was observed for Group 2 in respect to the reference; moreover RMSE was 1 and 1.3 mm higher for Group 2 for anterior‐posterior (AP) and left‐right (LR) directions, respectively. The difference between Groups 1 and 2 was significant (p < 0.01) for all directions. The mean values for the shifts in all three directions between Group 1 and the references were 0.235 mm, 0.385 mm, and 0.009 mm for the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. The position of the prostate gland is more easily detectable (p.15em=.15em0.02) in the AP direction, while the visibility is lower for LR (p.15em=.15em0.02) and SI boundaries (p < 0.05). The observers' experience is essential for positioning the target correctly; therefore, a training period is recommended before putting the system into clinical practice.PACS number: 87.63.dh

show abstract