Juan Yang1, Jing Cai2, Hongjun Wang3, Zheng Chang2, Brian G Czito2, Mustafa R Bashir4, Manisha Palta2, Fang-Fang Yin5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: fangfang.yin@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between liver tumor motion and diaphragm motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (10 of 14) or liver metastases (4 of 14) undergoing radiation therapy were included in this study. All patients underwent single-slice cine-magnetic resonance imaging simulations across the center of the tumor in 3 orthogonal planes. Tumor and diaphragm motion trajectories in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML) directions were obtained using an in-house-developed normalized cross-correlation-based tracking technique. Agreement between the tumor and diaphragm motion was assessed by calculating phase difference percentage, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis (Diff). The distance between the tumor and tracked diaphragm area was analyzed to understand its impact on the correlation between the 2 motions. RESULTS: Of all patients, the mean (±standard deviation) phase difference percentage values were 7.1% ± 1.1%, 4.5% ± 0.5%, and 17.5% ± 4.5% in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.98 ± 0.02, 0.97 ± 0.02, and 0.08 ± 0.06 in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean Diff values were 2.8 ± 1.4 mm, 2.4 ± 1.1 mm, and 2.2 ± 0.5 mm in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. Tumor and diaphragm motions had high concordance when the distance between the tumor and tracked diaphragm area was small. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that liver tumor motion had good correlation with diaphragm motion in the SI and AP directions, indicating diaphragm motion in the SI and AP directions could potentially be used as a reliable surrogate for liver tumor motion.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between liver tumor motion and diaphragm motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (10 of 14) or liver metastases (4 of 14) undergoing radiation therapy were included in this study. All patients underwent single-slice cine-magnetic resonance imaging simulations across the center of the tumor in 3 orthogonal planes. Tumor and diaphragm motion trajectories in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML) directions were obtained using an in-house-developed normalized cross-correlation-based tracking technique. Agreement between the tumor and diaphragm motion was assessed by calculating phase difference percentage, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis (Diff). The distance between the tumor and tracked diaphragm area was analyzed to understand its impact on the correlation between the 2 motions. RESULTS: Of all patients, the mean (±standard deviation) phase difference percentage values were 7.1% ± 1.1%, 4.5% ± 0.5%, and 17.5% ± 4.5% in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.98 ± 0.02, 0.97 ± 0.02, and 0.08 ± 0.06 in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean Diff values were 2.8 ± 1.4 mm, 2.4 ± 1.1 mm, and 2.2 ± 0.5 mm in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. Tumor and diaphragm motions had high concordance when the distance between the tumor and tracked diaphragm area was small. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that liver tumor motion had good correlation with diaphragm motion in the SI and AP directions, indicating diaphragm motion in the SI and AP directions could potentially be used as a reliable surrogate for liver tumor motion.
Authors: J M Balter; L A Dawson; S Kazanjian; C McGinn; K K Brock; T Lawrence; R Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicholas Koch; H Helen Liu; George Starkschall; Marc Jacobson; Kenneth Forster; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; Craig W Stevens Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Yin; J G Kim; C Haughton; S L Brown; M Ajlouni; M Stronati; N Pamukov; J H Kim Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christoph U Herborn; Florian Vogt; Thomas C Lauenstein; Mathias Goyen; Jörg F Debatin; Stephan G Ruehm Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Francesco Dionisi; Daniele Scartoni; Francesco Fracchiolla; Irene Giacomelli; Benedetta Siniscalchi; Lucia Goanta; Marco Cianchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Alberto Brolese Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Guang Li; Jie Wei; Hailiang Huang; Qing Chen; Carl P Gaebler; Tiffany Lin; Amy Yuan; Andreas Rimner; James Mechalakos Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mark K H Chan; Venus Lee; C L Chiang; Francis A S Lee; Gilbert Law; N Y Sin; K L Siu; Frank C S Wong; Stewart Y Tung; Hollis Luk; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 3.621