PURPOSE: To determine the stability of markers used for real-time tumor tracking after percutaneous intrapulmonary placement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 42 patients with 44 lesions, 111 markers, and ≥2 repeat computed tomography (CT) scans were studied. The tumor on the repeat CT scans was registered with the tumor on the planning CT scan. Next, the three-dimensional marker coordinates were determined on the planning CT scan and repeat CT scans. Marker stability was analyzed by the displacement of the markers and the displacement of the center of mass (COM) of the marker configurations. In addition, we assessed the reliability of using the intermarker distance as a check for displacements in the COM of the marker configurations. RESULTS: The median marker displacement was 1.3 mm (range, 0.1-53.6). The marker displacement was >5 mm in 12% of the markers and >10 mm in 5% of the markers. The causes of marker displacement >5 mm included marker migration (2 of 13) and target volume changes (5 of 13). Nonsynchronous tumor and marker movement during breathing might have been responsible for the displacements >5 mm in the other 6 of 13 markers. The median displacement in the COM of the marker configurations was 1.0 mm (range, 0.1-23.3). Displacements in the COM of the marker configurations of ≥2.0 mm were detected by changes in the intermarker distance of >1.5 mm in 96% of the treatment fractions. CONCLUSION: The median marker displacement was small (1.3 mm). Nevertheless, displacements >5 mm occurred in 12% of the markers. Therefore, we recommend the implantation of multiple markers because multiple markers will enable a quick and reliable check of marker displacement by determining the change in the intermarker distance. A displacement in the COM of the marker configuration of ≥2.0 mm was almost always detected (96%) by a change in the distance between the markers of >1.5 mm. This enabled the displaced marker to be disabled, such that tumor localization was not compromised.
PURPOSE: To determine the stability of markers used for real-time tumor tracking after percutaneous intrapulmonary placement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 42 patients with 44 lesions, 111 markers, and ≥2 repeat computed tomography (CT) scans were studied. The tumor on the repeat CT scans was registered with the tumor on the planning CT scan. Next, the three-dimensional marker coordinates were determined on the planning CT scan and repeat CT scans. Marker stability was analyzed by the displacement of the markers and the displacement of the center of mass (COM) of the marker configurations. In addition, we assessed the reliability of using the intermarker distance as a check for displacements in the COM of the marker configurations. RESULTS: The median marker displacement was 1.3 mm (range, 0.1-53.6). The marker displacement was >5 mm in 12% of the markers and >10 mm in 5% of the markers. The causes of marker displacement >5 mm included marker migration (2 of 13) and target volume changes (5 of 13). Nonsynchronous tumor and marker movement during breathing might have been responsible for the displacements >5 mm in the other 6 of 13 markers. The median displacement in the COM of the marker configurations was 1.0 mm (range, 0.1-23.3). Displacements in the COM of the marker configurations of ≥2.0 mm were detected by changes in the intermarker distance of >1.5 mm in 96% of the treatment fractions. CONCLUSION: The median marker displacement was small (1.3 mm). Nevertheless, displacements >5 mm occurred in 12% of the markers. Therefore, we recommend the implantation of multiple markers because multiple markers will enable a quick and reliable check of marker displacement by determining the change in the intermarker distance. A displacement in the COM of the marker configuration of ≥2.0 mm was almost always detected (96%) by a change in the distance between the markers of >1.5 mm. This enabled the displaced marker to be disabled, such that tumor localization was not compromised.
Authors: Chun-Chien Shieh; Vincent Caillet; Michelle Dunbar; Paul J Keall; Jeremy T Booth; Nicholas Hardcastle; Carol Haddad; Thomas Eade; Ilana Feain Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yi Rong; Jose G Bazan; Ashley Sekhon; Karl Haglund; Meng Xu-Welliver; Terence Williams Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gitte F Persson; Mirjana Josipovic; Peter von der Recke; Marianne C Aznar; Trine Juhler-Nøttrup; Per Munck af Rosenschöld; Stine Korreman; Lena Specht Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 2.102