| Literature DB >> 24586540 |
Jacob Palmer1, Jinzhong Yang1, Tinsu Pan1, Laurence E Court1.
Abstract
When imaging studies (e.g. CT) are used to quantify morphological changes in an anatomical structure, it is necessary to understand the extent and source of motion which can give imaging artifacts (e.g. blurring or local distortion). The objective of this study was to assess the magnitude of esophageal motion due to cardiac motion. We used retrospective electrocardiogram-gated contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography images for this study. The anatomic region from the carina to the bottom of the heart was taken at deep-inspiration breath hold with the patients' arms raised above their shoulders, in a position similar to that used for radiation therapy. The esophagus was delineated on the diastolic phase of cardiac motion, and deformable registration was used to sequentially deform the images in nearest-neighbor phases among the 10 cardiac phases, starting from the diastolic phase. Using the 10 deformation fields generated from the deformable registration, the magnitude of the extreme displacements was then calculated for each voxel, and the mean and maximum displacement was calculated for each computed tomography slice for each patient. The average maximum esophageal displacement due to cardiac motion for all patients was 5.8 mm (standard deviation: 1.6 mm, maximum: 10.0 mm) in the transverse direction. For 21 of 26 patients, the largest esophageal motion was found in the inferior region of the heart; for the other patients, esophageal motion was approximately independent of superior-inferior position. The esophagus motion was larger at cardiac phases where the electrocardiogram R-wave occurs. In conclusion, the magnitude of esophageal motion near the heart due to cardiac motion is similar to that due to other sources of motion, including respiratory motion and intra-fraction motion. A larger cardiac motion will result into larger esophagus motion in a cardiac cycle.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24586540 PMCID: PMC3938435 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Illustration of voxel-level motion trajectory.
The displacement vectors from are concatenated together to form this motion trajectory. The motion magnitudes in three directions, , , and , were computed by measuring the maximum range of the trajectory in all three directions: left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI).
The analyzed results for 26 patients.
| No. | Mean motion (mm) | Maximum motion (mm) | ||||||||
| LR | AP | SI | Axial | Total | LR | AP | SI | Axial | Total | |
| 1 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 5.0 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 12.7 | 6.0 | 12.9 |
| 2 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.3 | 6.3 | 3.4 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 8.4 |
| 3 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 8.7 | 7.0 | 9.8 |
| 4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 6.0 |
| 5 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 7.1 |
| 6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 7.5 |
| 7 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 4.0 | 6.1 | 5.8 | 8.3 |
| 8 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 5.8 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 6.3 | 7.7 |
| 9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 4.7 | 6.2 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 8.2 | 10.2 |
| 10 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 4.5 | 6.5 | 4.9 | 10.4 | 7.4 | 11.6 |
| 11 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 4.6 | 2.9 | 6.4 | 5.3 | 6.9 |
| 12 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 8.4 | 5.0 | 8.4 |
| 13 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 6.2 |
| 14 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 6.3 | 8.8 | 5.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 13.7 |
| 15 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 5.7 |
| 16 | 3.3 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 6.2 | 7.6 | 6.0 | 7.4 | 7.1 | 8.7 | 11.0 |
| 17 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 9.4 |
| 18 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 5.2 | 6.6 | 4.5 | 11.3 | 6.9 | 12.8 |
| 19 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 |
| 20 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 4.7 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 5.5 | 6.0 |
| 21 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 4.3 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 7.8 | 5.4 | 9.4 |
| 22 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 4.9 |
| 23 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 6.4 | 3.8 | 4.9 | 6.6 | 8.0 |
| 24 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 4.5 | 9.4 | 5.5 | 9.9 |
| 25 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 5.2 |
| 26 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 6.1 | 3.8 | 6.6 |
| Mean | 1.7 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 3.7 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 7.0 | 5.8 | 8.4 |
| SD | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.5 |
For each patient, and for each CT slice, the mean and maximum motions at each direction—left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI)—and the total motion magnitudes were calculated. Then, for each patient, the maximum values of these mean and maximum motions over all slices were calculated and presented in this table. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for all 26 patients as well. Because the motion in SI direction was not reliable and difficult to validate, we also reported the motion in the transverse (Axial) direction without taking into account the SI motion.
Figure 2Variation of mean and maximum esophageal motion as a function of CT slice number.
Figure 3Averaged maximum esophagus motion versus cardiac phase over 26 patients.
Error bars for total motion indicate the standard deviation over 26 patients.