PURPOSE: To compare two "four-dimensional" methods for image-guided target localization in the presence of respiration. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-dimensional image guidance was performed with two methods. A respiration-correlated computed tomography (RCCT) was acquired on a CT simulator, and an average CT (AVG-CT) image was generated from the RCCT. A respiration-correlated cone-beam CT (RC-CBCT) and a free-breathing cone-beam CT (FB-CBCT) were acquired. The "RCCT method" consisted of calculating the mean target position on both the RCCT and RC-CBCT, registering the RCCT to the RC-CBCT, and determining the shift in the mean target position from the planned mean position. The "AVG-CT method" consisted of registering the AVG-CT to the FB-CBCT. The ability of each to measure the shift in the mean target position was compared, both in a respiratory phantom and in 8 patients. RESULTS: In phantom, the RCCT and AVG-CT methods were able to measure the true mean target position to within 0.15 cm and 0.10 cm, respectively. In the patient study, the mean error between the methods was 0.13 cm (left-right), 0.14 cm (anterior-posterior), and 0.10 cm (cranio-caudal). The error was not observed to vary with tumor position or magnitude of tumor motion. CONCLUSIONS: Respiration may impact the on-line image guidance process. The RCCT method enables localization of the mean tumor position and measurement of changes in the motion pattern, whereas the AVG-CT method is simple, fast, and easily implemented. We found the methods to be nearly equivalent in detecting shifts in the mean tumor position.
PURPOSE: To compare two "four-dimensional" methods for image-guided target localization in the presence of respiration. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-dimensional image guidance was performed with two methods. A respiration-correlated computed tomography (RCCT) was acquired on a CT simulator, and an average CT (AVG-CT) image was generated from the RCCT. A respiration-correlated cone-beam CT (RC-CBCT) and a free-breathing cone-beam CT (FB-CBCT) were acquired. The "RCCT method" consisted of calculating the mean target position on both the RCCT and RC-CBCT, registering the RCCT to the RC-CBCT, and determining the shift in the mean target position from the planned mean position. The "AVG-CT method" consisted of registering the AVG-CT to the FB-CBCT. The ability of each to measure the shift in the mean target position was compared, both in a respiratory phantom and in 8 patients. RESULTS: In phantom, the RCCT and AVG-CT methods were able to measure the true mean target position to within 0.15 cm and 0.10 cm, respectively. In the patient study, the mean error between the methods was 0.13 cm (left-right), 0.14 cm (anterior-posterior), and 0.10 cm (cranio-caudal). The error was not observed to vary with tumor position or magnitude of tumor motion. CONCLUSIONS: Respiration may impact the on-line image guidance process. The RCCT method enables localization of the mean tumor position and measurement of changes in the motion pattern, whereas the AVG-CT method is simple, fast, and easily implemented. We found the methods to be nearly equivalent in detecting shifts in the mean tumor position.
Authors: J W Wong; M B Sharpe; D A Jaffray; V R Kini; J M Robertson; J S Stromberg; A A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marcel van Herk; Marnix Witte; Joris van der Geer; Christoph Schneider; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P J Keall; G Starkschall; H Shukla; K M Forster; V Ortiz; C W Stevens; S S Vedam; R George; T Guerrero; R Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2004-05-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Daniel Létourneau; John W Wong; Mark Oldham; Misbah Gulam; Lindsay Watt; David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: F J Lagerwaard; J R Van Sornsen de Koste; M R Nijssen-Visser; R H Schuchhard-Schipper; S S Oei; A Munne; S Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K Ohara; T Okumura; M Akisada; T Inada; T Mori; H Yokota; M J Calaguas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joseph Santoro; Sergey Kriminski; D Michael Lovelock; Kenneth Rosenzweig; Hassan Mostafavi; Howard I Amols; Gig S Mageras Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Markus Oechsner; Barbara Chizzali; Michal Devecka; Stefan Münch; Stephanie Elisabeth Combs; Jan Jakob Wilkens; Marciana Nona Duma Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 3.621