↓ Skip to main content

Experimental study of beam distortion due to fiducial markers during salvage HIFU in the prostate

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Experimental study of beam distortion due to fiducial markers during salvage HIFU in the prostate
Published in
Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40349-018-0109-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Bakaric, Eleanor Martin, Panayiotis S. Georgiou, Benjamin T. Cox, Heather Payne, Bradley E. Treeby

Abstract

Prostate cancer is frequently treated using external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Prior to therapy, the prostate is commonly implanted with a small number of permanent fiducial markers used to monitor the position of the prostate during therapy. In the case of local cancer recurrence, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) provides a non-invasive salvage treatment option. However, the impact of the fiducial markers on HIFU treatment has not been thoroughly studied to date. The objective of this study was to experimentally investigate the effect of a single EBRT fiducial marker on the efficacy of HIFU treatment delivery using a tissue-mimicking material (TMM). A TMM with the acoustic properties of the prostate was developed based on a polyacrylamide hydrogel containing bovine serum albumin. Each phantom was implanted with a cylindrical fiducial marker and then sonicated using a 3.3 MHz focused bowl HIFU transducer. Two sets of experiments were performed. In the first, a single lesion was created at different positions along either the anteroposterior or left-right axes relative to the marker. In the second, a larger ablation volume was created by raster scanning. The size and position of the ablated volume were assessed using a millimetre grid overlaid on the phantom. The impact of the marker on the position and size of the HIFU lesion was significant when the transducer focus was positioned within 7 mm anteriorly, 18 mm posteriorly or within 3 mm laterally of the marker. Beyond this, the generated lesion was not affected. When the focus was anterior to the marker, the lesion increased in size due to reflections. When the focus was posterior, the lesion decreased in size or was not present due to shadowing. The presence of an EBRT fiducial marker may result in an undertreated region beyond the marker due to reduced energy arriving at the focus, and an overtreated region in front of the marker due to reflections. Depending on the position of the targeted regions and the distribution of the markers, both effects may be undesirable and reduce treatment efficacy. Further work is necessary to investigate whether these results indicate the necessity to reconsider patient selection and treatment planning for prostate salvage HIFU after failed EBRT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Other 3 14%
Lecturer 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Unknown 11 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,979,439
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound
#48
of 77 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,102
of 332,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. 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 332,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them