Assisted Probe Positioning for Ultrasound Guided Radiotherapy Using Image Sequence Classification

Effective transperineal ultrasound image guidance in prostate external beam radiotherapy requires consistent alignment between probe and prostate at each session during patient set-up. Probe placement and ultrasound image interpretation are manual tasks contingent upon operator skill, leading to interoperator uncertainties that degrade radiotherapy precision. We demonstrate a method for ensuring accurate probe placement through joint classification of images and probe position data. Using a multi-input multi-task algorithm, spatial coordinate data from an optically tracked ultrasound probe is combined with an image classifier using a recurrent neural network to generate two sets of predictions in real-time. The first set identifies relevant prostate anatomy visible in the field of view using the classes: outside prostate, prostate periphery, prostate centre. The second set recommends a probe angular adjustment to achieve alignment between the probe and prostate centre with the classes: move left, move right, stop. The algorithm was trained and tested on 9,743 clinical images from 61 treatment sessions across 32 patients. We evaluated classification accuracy against class labels derived from three experienced observers at 2/3 and 3/3 agreement thresholds. For images with unanimous consensus between observers, anatomical classification accuracy was 97.2% and probe adjustment accuracy was 94.9%. The algorithm identified optimal probe alignment within a mean (standard deviation) range of 3.7° (1.2°) from angle labels with full observer consensus, comparable to the 2.8° (2.6°) mean interobserver range. We propose such an algorithm could assist radiotherapy practitioners with limited experience of ultrasound image interpretation by providing effective real-time feedback during patient set-up

Assisted Probe Positioning for Ultrasound Guided Radiotherapy Using Image Sequence Classification

Effective transperineal ultrasound image guidance in prostate external beam radiotherapy requires consistent alignment between probe and prostate at each session during patient set-up. Probe placement and ultrasound image inter-pretation are manual tasks contingent upon operator skill, leading to interoperator uncertainties that degrade radiotherapy precision. We demonstrate a method for ensuring accurate probe placement through joint classification of images and probe position data. Using a multi-input multi-task algorithm, spatial coordinate data from an optically tracked ultrasound probe is combined with an image clas-sifier using a recurrent neural network to generate two sets of predictions in real-time. The first set identifies relevant prostate anatomy visible in the field of view using the classes: outside prostate, prostate periphery, prostate centre. The second set recommends a probe angular adjustment to achieve alignment between the probe and prostate centre with the classes: move left, move right, stop. The algo-rithm was trained and tested on 9,743 clinical images from 61 treatment sessions across 32 patients. We evaluated classification accuracy against class labels de-rived from three experienced observers at 2/3 and 3/3 agreement thresholds. For images with unanimous consensus between observers, anatomical classification accuracy was 97.2% and probe adjustment accuracy was 94.9%. The algorithm identified optimal probe alignment within a mean (standard deviation) range of 3.7$^{\circ}$ (1.2$^{\circ}$) from angle labels with full observer consensus, comparable to the 2.8$^{\circ}$ (2.6$^{\circ}$) mean interobserver range. We propose such an algorithm could assist ra-diotherapy practitioners with limited experience of ultrasound image interpreta-tion by providing effective real-time feedback during patient set-up.Comment: Accepted to MICCAI 202

Medical image computing and computer-aided medical interventions applied to soft tissues. Work in progress in urology

Until recently, Computer-Aided Medical Interventions (CAMI) and Medical Robotics have focused on rigid and non deformable anatomical structures. Nowadays, special attention is paid to soft tissues, raising complex issues due to their mobility and deformation. Mini-invasive digestive surgery was probably one of the first fields where soft tissues were handled through the development of simulators, tracking of anatomical structures and specific assistance robots. However, other clinical domains, for instance urology, are concerned. Indeed, laparoscopic surgery, new tumour destruction techniques (e.g. HIFU, radiofrequency, or cryoablation), increasingly early detection of cancer, and use of interventional and diagnostic imaging modalities, recently opened new challenges to the urologist and scientists involved in CAMI. This resulted in the last five years in a very significant increase of research and developments of computer-aided urology systems. In this paper, we propose a description of the main problems related to computer-aided diagnostic and therapy of soft tissues and give a survey of the different types of assistance offered to the urologist: robotization, image fusion, surgical navigation. Both research projects and operational industrial systems are discussed

Improving 3D ultrasound prostate localisation in radiotherapy through increased automation of interfraction matching.

Background and purpose Daily image guidance is standard care for prostate radiotherapy. Innovations which improve the accuracy and efficiency of ultrasound guidance are needed, particularly with respect to reducing interobserver variation. This study explores automation tools for this purpose, demonstrated on the Elekta Clarity Autoscan®. The study was conducted as part of the Clarity-Pro trial (NCT02388308). Materials and methods Ultrasound scan volumes were collected from 32 patients. Prostate matches were performed using two proposed workflows and the results compared with Clarity's proprietary software. Gold standard matches derived from manually localised landmarks provided a reference. The two workflows incorporated a custom 3D image registration algorithm, which was benchmarked against a third-party application (Elastix). Results Significant reductions in match errors were reported from both workflows compared to standard protocol. Median (IQR) absolute errors in the left-right, anteroposterior and craniocaudal axes were lowest for the Manually Initiated workflow: 0.7(1.0) mm, 0.7(0.9) mm, 0.6(0.9) mm compared to 1.0(1.7) mm, 0.9(1.4) mm, 0.9(1.2) mm for Clarity. Median interobserver variation was ≪0.01 mm in all axes for both workflows compared to 2.2 mm, 1.7 mm, 1.5 mm for Clarity in left-right, anteroposterior and craniocaudal axes. Mean matching times was also reduced to 43 s from 152 s for Clarity. Inexperienced users of the proposed workflows attained better match precision than experienced users on Clarity. Conclusion Automated image registration with effective input and verification steps should increase the efficacy of interfraction ultrasound guidance compared to the current commercially available tools

Real-Time Ultrasound Image-Guidance and Tracking in External Beam Radiotherapy

Background and Purpose - To evaluate the accuracy of Clarity (clinical version) system by using ultrasound phantom and some probe position. - To evaluate the intrafraction motion of prostate by collecting and analyzing ultrasound monitoring data from some patients. - To evaluate the accuracy of Clarity (Anticosti) system by using 3D phantom programmed with sinusoidal and breathing movement patterns to simulate computer-controlled based breath-hold phases interspersed with spontaneous breathing. - To evaluate the clinical applicability of Clarity (Anticosti) system for liver cases in healthy volunteers. The tracking results of healthy volunteers were compared to surface marker. - To evaluate the intrafraction motion during breath-hold in liver case by collecting and analyzing US monitoring data from some patients. Material and Methods The accuracy of Clarity (clinical version) system was evaluated using ultrasound phantom and some probe position. Two different probes were used: transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) probe. Two positions of the phantom were used for TPUS, the vertical and the horizontal position. Intrafraction motion assessment of the prostate was based on continuous position monitoring with a 4D US system along the three directions; left(+)-right (LR), anterior(+)-posterior (AP), and inferior(+)-superior (SI). 770 US monitoring sessions in 38 prostate cancer patients’ normo-fractionated VMAT treatment series were retrospectively evaluated. The overall mean values and standard deviations (SD) along with random and systematic SDs were computed. The tracking accuracy of the research 4D US system was evaluated using two motion phantoms programmed with sinusoidal and breathing patterns to simulate free breathing and DIBH. The clinical performance was evaluated with 5 healthy volunteers. US datasets were acquired in computer-controlled DIBH with varying angular scanning angles. Tracked structures were renal pelvis (spherical structure) and portal/liver vein branches (non-spherical structure). An external marker was attached to the surface of both phantoms and volunteers as a secondary tracked object by an infrared camera for comparison. Residual intrafractional motion of DIBH tracking target relative to beginning position in each breath-hold plateau region was analysed along three directions; superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP). 12 PTVs of 11 patients with primary/secondary liver tumours or adrenal gland/spleen metastases of diverse primaries were irradiated with SBRT in DIBH. Real time tracking of target or neighbouring surrogate structures was performed additionally using 4D US system during CBCT acquisition after permission of local IRB. Results The geometric positioning tolerance for Clarity-Sim and Clarity-Guide is 1 mm according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The results showed that all phantom and probe combinations met this criterion. The mean duration of each prostate monitoring session was 254s. The mean (μ), the systematic error () and the random error (σ) of intrafraction prostate motion were μ=(0.01, -0.08, 0.15)mm, =(0.30, 0.34, 0.23)mm and σ=(0.59, 0.73, 0.64)mm in LR, AP and SI direction, respectively. The percentage of treatments for which prostate motion was 2mm was present in about 0.67% of the data. The percentage increased to 2.42%, 6.14%, and 9.35% at 120s, 180s and 240s, respectively. The phantom measurements using Clarity (Anticosti) system showed increasing accuracy of US tracking with decreasing scanning range. The probability of lost tracking was higher for small scanning ranges (43.09% (10°) and 13.54% (20°)).The tracking success rates in healthy volunteers during DIBH were 93.24% and 89.86% for renal pelvis and portal vein branches, respectively. There was a strong correlation between the motion of the marker and the US tracking for the majority of analyzed breath-holds. 84.06% and 88.41% of renal pelvis target results and 82.26% and 91.94% of liver vein target results in AP and SI direction, the Pearson correlation coefficient was between 0.71 and 0.99. For evaluation of the intrafraction motion during breath-hold, 680 individual BHs during 93 treatment fractions were analysed. On visual control of tracking movies, target was lost in 27.9% of tracking, leaving a total of 490 BHs with optimal tracking. During these BHs, mean(+SD) target displacement were 1.7(+0.8)mm, 0.9(+0.4)mm, 2.2(+1.0)mm and 3.2(+1.0)mm for SI, LR, AP and 3D vector, respectively. Most of target displacement was below 2mm with percentage of 64.6%, 88.1% and 60.5% for SI, LR and AP, respectively. Data percentage of large target displacement increased with added BH time. At 5s, 3D vector of target displacement >10mm could be observed in 0.1% of data. Percentage values increased to 0.2%, 0.6%, and 1.1% at 10s, 15s and 20s, respectively. Conclusions The 4D US system offers a non-invasive method for online organ motion monitoring without additional ionizing radiation dose to the patient. The magnitudes of intrafraction prostate motion along the SI and AP directions were comparable. On average, the smallest motion was in the LR direction and the largest in AP direction. Most of the prostate displacements were within a few millimeters. However, with increased treatment time, larger 3D vector prostate displacements up to 18.30 mm could be observed. Shortening the treatment time can reduce the intrafractional motion and its effects and US monitoring can help to maximize treatment precision particularly in hypofractionated treatment regimens. For organ monitoring during BH application, the 4D US system showed a good performance and tracking accuracy in a 4D motion phantom when tracking a target that moves in accordance to a simulating breathing pattern. A 30°scanning range turned out to be an optimal parameter to track along with respiratory motion considering the accuracy of tracking and the possible loss of the tracked structure. The ultrasound tracking system is also applicable to a clinical setup with the tested hardware solution. The tracking capability of surrogate structures for upper abdominal lesions in DIBH is promising but needs further investigation in a larger cohort of patients. Ultrasound motion data show a strong correlation with surface motion data for most of individual breath-holds. Further improvement of the tracking algorithm is suggested to improve accuracy along with respiratory motion if using larger scanning angles for detection of high-amplitude motion and non-linear transformations of the tracking target. The exact quantification of residual motion impact requires an in-depth analysis of time spent at every position, nevertheless mean residual motion during DIBH is low and predominant direction is SI and AP. Only infrequently larger displacements of 3D vector >1 cm were observed, for short periods. Beam interruption at predefined thresholds could take DIBH treatments close to perfection. Key words: Medical Physics, 4D ultrasound, IGRT (image-guided radiotherapy), prostate motion, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), deep inspiratory breath-hold (DIBH)

A method for validating a transperineal ultrasound system for intrafraction monitoring of the prostate during external beam radiotherapy

Introduction: The Clarity Autoscan 40 transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) system (Eiekta, Sweden) for prostate motion management employs a vertically-oriented 20 ultrasound array that is continuously swept mechanically to repeatedly produce 30 images containing the prostate [1]. The target position relative to a pre-fraction reference scan is determined multiple times per second. Other investigators have studied the tracking accuracy of the system using displacements of ~1 0 mm from the initial normalisation point typical to a clinical treatment [1-4]. The primary aim of this work was to utilise clinically available equipment to compare the target positions reported by the Clarity Autoscan system to known target positions over the full imaging volume. A scanning dosimetry water tank was used, however refraction in the 20 mm PMMA wall of the tank presented a significant complication. The potential variation in target dose due to intervention based on the Clarity prostate motion management was also investigated. Method: A prostate analogue was mounted to the scanning mechanism of a MP3-XS scanning water tank "' (PTW, Germany). The Clarity probe was positioned externally against the wall of the scanning tank in the treatment orientation. The scanning mechanism was programmed to make in-plane, cross-plane and diagonal 'profiles' in the horizontal plane ranging approximately ±30 mm from the isocentre. Seven sets of these four 'profiles' were acquired between ±30 mm in the vertical direction yielding data throughout a 60 cm-sided cube centred on the isocentre. A bi-layer 30 refraction correction algorithm was derived to account for refraction caused by differences between the speed of sound in both PMMA and water from the speed of sound in soft tissue assumed by the Clarity system. The prostate analogue was then replaced with a Farmer-type ionisation chamber and monitored by the Clarity system during beam delivery. Programmed movements of the chamber triggered manual or automatic suspension of the beam and the resulting measured doses compared. Results: Without refraction correction the maximum difference in the reported positions from the programmed positions was 9.3 mm and the mean(±SD) difference was 4.0±1.8 mm. Refraction correction reduced this to a maximum of 3.4 mm, and a mean(±SD) of 1.0±0.5 mm. The worst results were at the peripheries of the imaged volume and near the transducer where the Clarity system had difficulty maintaining tracking due to narrowing of the swept imaging volume. At the lateral (left-right) and vertical (anterior-posterior) extremities, the prostate analogue images were visibly distorted which may have affected the accuracy of the Clarity centroid position calculation. There was no significant difference in measured dose between manual and automatic beam suspension in a 10x10 cm2 field when the target moved along the beam axis. Furthermore, there was only a minimal difference in measured dose to the centre of the 'prostate' between intervention and no intervention when the 'prostate' was programmed to move ±20 mm along the beam axis during a 180 MU 1 Ox1 0 cm2 field beam. However, it was found that there was a delay of 5.4±0.9 s between threshold crossing and beam suspension which could become significant at higher dose rates. Conclusions: The target positions reported by the Elekta Clarity Autoscan system can be validated using a programmable scanning water tank by employing a refraction correction if care is taken in the initial positioning of the transducer. Further improvement might be achieved by using a smaller target analogue and associated volume to reduce the effect of the refraction-induced distortion on the Clarity centroid calculation. Intervention following detected prostate motion along the beam axis will have minimal effect on the dose to the centre of the prostate; however, motion in any direction will compromise target coverage and dose minimisation to healthy tissue.Thesis (MPhil) -- University of Adelaide, School of Physical Sciences, 201