A revised version of this paper, published originally on 2016, was published on 6 January, 2017, replacing the original paper. To correct for a set-up error, the simulated treatment plan was re-run using CT images of a solid water phantom with/without the Autoscan US probe in contact with its surface. The revised paper is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2216653.

Changes to original text:

Section 2.2

1. A solid water phantom is employed as opposed to a Rando phantom.

2. Figure 1 is changed to illustrate new phantom.

Section 2.3

1. New treatment isocentre.

2. Figure 3 is changed to illustrate dose distribution in new phantom.

Section 3.2

1. Text of first paragraph has been revised to reflect new results.

2. Table 2 has been revised to reflect new results.

3. Figure 6 has been revised to reflect new results.

Section 4

1. Text of second paragraph has been revised to reflect new results.

Date Published: 10 January 2017
PDF: 1 pages
Proc. SPIE 9790, Medical Imaging 2016: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography, 97902A (10 January 2017); doi: 10.1117/12.2271153

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 9790:
Medical Imaging 2016: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography
Neb Duric; Brecht Heyde, Editor(s)