Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1175
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHamilton, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorMcKenzie, Dean-
dc.contributor.authorPerkins, Anne-
dc.date2017-07-12-
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-21T02:11:09Z-
dc.date.available2017-07-21T02:11:09Z-
dc.date.issued2017-07-
dc.identifier.citationJ Appl Clin Med Phys. 12 July 2017; xx:1–11en_US
dc.identifier.issn1526-9914en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1175-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in target localization between Calypso®, kV orthogonal imaging and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for combined translations and rotations of an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom. The phantom was localized using all three systems in 50 different positions, with applied translational and rotational offsets randomly sampled from representative normal distributions of prostate motion. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the agreement between the localization systems. Mean differences and difference vectors between the three systems were also calculated. Agreement between systems for lateral, vertical, and longitudinal translations was excellent, with ρc values of greater than 0.98 between all three systems in all axes. There was excellent agreement between the systems for rotations around the lateral axis (pitch) (ρc > 0.99), and around the vertical axis (yaw) (ρc > 0.97). However, somewhat poorer agreement for rotations around the longitudinal axis (roll) was observed, with the lowest correlation observed between Calypso and kV orthogonal imaging (ρc = 0.895). Mean differences between the phantom position reported by Calypso and the radiographic systems were less than 1 mm and 1° for all translations and rotations. The results for translations are consistent with the publications of previous authors. There is no comparable published data for rotations. While there is lower correlation between the three systems for roll than for the other angles, the mean differences in reported rotations are not clinically significant.en_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.subjectCalypso®, kV Orthogonal Imagingen_US
dc.subjectCone-Beam Computed Tomographyen_US
dc.subjectCBCTen_US
dc.subjectRotational Accuracyen_US
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasmsen_US
dc.subjectOrgan Motionen_US
dc.subjectRadiotherapyen_US
dc.subjectProstate Radiotherapyen_US
dc.subjectAnthropomorphic Pelvic Phantomen_US
dc.subjectProstate Motionen_US
dc.subjectResearch, Development and Governance, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectEpworth Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleComparison between electromagnetic transponders and radiographic imaging for prostate localization: A pelvic phantom study with rotations and translations.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/acm2.12119en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physicsen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28699243en_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialComparative Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Epworth Prostate Centre
Radiation Oncology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Hamilton_et_al-2017-Journal_of_Applied_Clinical_Medical_Physics.pdf949.05 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.