↓ Skip to main content

An integrated system for clinical treatment verification of HDR prostate brachytherapy combining source tracking with pretreatment imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Brachytherapy, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An integrated system for clinical treatment verification of HDR prostate brachytherapy combining source tracking with pretreatment imaging
Published in
Brachytherapy, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.brachy.2017.08.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan L. Smith, Max Hanlon, Vanessa Panettieri, Jeremy L. Millar, Bronwyn Matheson, Annette Haworth, Rick D. Franich

Abstract

High-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy treatment is usually delivered in one or a few large dose fractions. Poor execution of a planned treatment could have significant clinical impact, as high doses are delivered in seconds, and mistakes in an individual fraction cannot be easily rectified. Given that most potential errors in HDR brachytherapy ultimately lead to a geographical miss, a more direct approach to verification of correct treatment delivery is to directly monitor the position of the source throughout the treatment. In this work, we report on the clinical implementation of our treatment verification system that uniquely combines the 2D source-tracking capability with 2D pretreatment imaging, using a single flat panel detector (FPD). The clinical brachytherapy treatment couch was modified to allow integration of the FPD into the couch. This enabled the patient to be set up in the brachytherapy bunker in a position that closely matched that at treatment planning imaging. An anteroposterior image was acquired of the patient immediately before treatment delivery and was assessed by the Radiation Oncologist online, to reestablish the positions of the catheters relative to the prostate. Assessment of catheter positions was performed in the left-right and superior-inferior directions along the entire catheter length and throughout the treatment volume. Source tracking was then performed during treatment delivery, and the measured position of the source dwells were directly compared to the treatment plan for verification. The treatment verification system was integrated into the clinical environment without significant change to workflow. Two patient cases are presented in this work to provide clinical examples of this system, which is now in routine use for all patient treatments in our clinic. The catheter positions were visualized relative to the prostate, immediately before treatment delivery. For one of the patient cases presented in this work, they agreed with the treatment plan on average by 1.5 mm and were identifiable as a predominantly inferior shift. The source tracking was performed during treatment delivery, and for the same case, the mean deviation from the planned dwell positions was 1.9 mm (max = 4.9 mm) for 280 positions across all catheters. We have implemented our noninvasive treatment verification system based on an FPD in the clinical environment. The device is integrated into a patient treatment couch, and the process is now included in the routine clinical treatment procedure with minor impact on workflow. The system which combines both 2D pretreatment imaging and HDR 2D source tracking provides a range of information that can be used for comprehensive treatment verification. The system has the potential to meaningfully improve safety standards by allowing widespread adoption of routine treatment verification in HDR brachytherapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Professor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 10 28%
Engineering 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Psychology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brachytherapy
#395
of 704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,319
of 326,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brachytherapy
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 704 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.