I Fortin1, J-F Carrier, M-C Beauchemin, D Béliveau-Nadeau, G Delouya, D Taussky. 1. Département de Radio-Oncologie, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Hôpital Notre-Dame, Sherbrooke St. E., 1560, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to assess the stability of fiducial markers in the prostate bed and compared their use to surgical clips. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 3-4 gold fiducial markers were transrectally implanted in the prostate bed of 14 patients. The stability of the fiducial markers position (fiducial markers fixity) over an EBRT course was assessed. Furthermore, the advantages of the fiducial markers compared to the surgical clips were assessed and the interobserver variation between the two technologies was compared. RESULTS: The mean fiducial marker migration during a course of EBRT was small with 1.2 mm (SD ± 0.8 mm). Compared to fiducial markers, the matches with surgical clips were mismatched ≥ 2 mm in 68% of treatments. This discrepancy of > 2 mm was on average 3.7 ± 1.3 mm. There was less interobserver variability for matching of fiducial markers (0.8 ± 0.7 mm) than for surgical clips (2.0 ± 1.6 mm). CONCLUSION: Fiducial markers showed less interobserver variability in matching and less variation in position than surgical clips. Fiducial markers could ultimately help in reducing treatment margins.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to assess the stability of fiducial markers in the prostate bed and compared their use to surgical clips. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 3-4 gold fiducial markers were transrectally implanted in the prostate bed of 14 patients. The stability of the fiducial markers position (fiducial markers fixity) over an EBRT course was assessed. Furthermore, the advantages of the fiducial markers compared to the surgical clips were assessed and the interobserver variation between the two technologies was compared. RESULTS: The mean fiducial marker migration during a course of EBRT was small with 1.2 mm (SD ± 0.8 mm). Compared to fiducial markers, the matches with surgical clips were mismatched ≥ 2 mm in 68% of treatments. This discrepancy of > 2 mm was on average 3.7 ± 1.3 mm. There was less interobserver variability for matching of fiducial markers (0.8 ± 0.7 mm) than for surgical clips (2.0 ± 1.6 mm). CONCLUSION: Fiducial markers showed less interobserver variability in matching and less variation in position than surgical clips. Fiducial markers could ultimately help in reducing treatment margins.
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Mirja Ruutu; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Hans Garmo; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Bo Johan Norlén; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Piet Ost; Cesare Cozzarini; Gert De Meerleer; Claudio Fiorino; Bruno De Potter; Alberto Briganti; Evi V T Nagler; Francesco Montorsi; Valérie Fonteyne; Nadia Di Muzio Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J F Langenhuijsen; R Donker; G M McColl; L A L M Kiemeney; J A Witjes; E N J T van Lin Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-04-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Colleen Lawton; Issam El Naqa; Mark Ritter; Elizabeth O'Meara; Michael J Seider; W Robert Lee; Seth A Rosenthal; Thomas Pisansky; Charles Catton; Richard K Valicenti; Anthony L Zietman; Walter R Bosch; Howard Sandler; Mark K Buyyounouski; Cynthia Ménard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeanette M Broering; Mark S Litwin; Deborah P Lubeck; Shilpa S Mehta; James M Henning; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karim Touijer; Fernando P Secin; Angel M Cronin; Darren Katz; Fernando Bianco; Kinjal Vora; Victor Reuter; Andrew J Vickers; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: S Dobiasch; S Kampfer; R Burkhardt; D Schilling; T E Schmid; J J Wilkens; S E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Florent Vilotte; Mickael Antoine; Maxime Bobin; Igor Latorzeff; Stéphane Supiot; Pierre Richaud; Laurence Thomas; Nicolas Leduc; Stephane Guérif; Jone Iriondo-Alberdi; Renaud de Crevoisier; Paul Sargos Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Sara Elakshar; James Man Git Tsui; Michael Jonathan Kucharczyk; Nada Tomic; Ziad Simon Fawaz; Boris Bahoric; Joseph Papayanatos; Ahmad Chaddad; Tamim Niazi Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-01