Jonas Scherman Rydhög1, Rasmus Irming Jølck2, Thomas Lars Andresen2, Per Munck Af Rosenschöld1. 1. Department of Oncology, Section of Radiotherapy, 3994, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen 2100, Denmark and Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 17, Copenhagen 2100, Denmark. 2. DTU Nanotech, Department of Micro- and Nanotechnology, Center for Nanomedicine and Theranostics, Technical University of Denmark, Building 423, Kongens Lyngby 2800, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A new biodegradable liquid fiducial marker was devised to allow for easy insertion in lung tumors using thin needles. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visibility of the liquid fiducial markers for image-guided radiation therapy and compare to existing solid fiducial markers and to one existing liquid fiducial marker currently commercially available. METHODS: Fiducial marker visibility was quantified in terms of contrast to noise ratio (CNR) on planar kilovoltage x-ray images in a thorax phantom for different concentrations of the radio-opaque component of the new liquid fiducial marker, four solid fiducial markers, and one existing liquid fiducial marker. Additionally, the image artifacts produced on computer tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) of all fiducial markers were quantified. RESULTS: The authors found that the new liquid fiducial marker with the highest concentration of the radio-opaque component had a CNR > 2.05 for 62/63 exposures, which compared favorably to the existing solid fiducial markers and to the existing liquid fiducial marker evaluated. On CT and CBCT, the new liquid fiducial marker with the highest concentration produced lower streaking index artifact (30 and 14, respectively) than the solid gold markers (113 and 20, respectively) and the existing liquid fiducial marker (39 and 20, respectively). The size of the image artifact was larger for all of the liquid fiducial markers compared to the solid fiducial markers because of their larger physical size. CONCLUSIONS: The visibility and the image artifacts produced by the new liquid fiducial markers were comparable to existing solid fiducial markers and the existing liquid fiducial marker. The authors conclude that the new liquid fiducial marker represents an alternative to the fiducial markers tested.
PURPOSE: A new biodegradable liquid fiducial marker was devised to allow for easy insertion in lung tumors using thin needles. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visibility of the liquid fiducial markers for image-guided radiation therapy and compare to existing solid fiducial markers and to one existing liquid fiducial marker currently commercially available. METHODS: Fiducial marker visibility was quantified in terms of contrast to noise ratio (CNR) on planar kilovoltage x-ray images in a thorax phantom for different concentrations of the radio-opaque component of the new liquid fiducial marker, four solid fiducial markers, and one existing liquid fiducial marker. Additionally, the image artifacts produced on computer tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) of all fiducial markers were quantified. RESULTS: The authors found that the new liquid fiducial marker with the highest concentration of the radio-opaque component had a CNR > 2.05 for 62/63 exposures, which compared favorably to the existing solid fiducial markers and to the existing liquid fiducial marker evaluated. On CT and CBCT, the new liquid fiducial marker with the highest concentration produced lower streaking index artifact (30 and 14, respectively) than the solid gold markers (113 and 20, respectively) and the existing liquid fiducial marker (39 and 20, respectively). The size of the image artifact was larger for all of the liquid fiducial markers compared to the solid fiducial markers because of their larger physical size. CONCLUSIONS: The visibility and the image artifacts produced by the new liquid fiducial markers were comparable to existing solid fiducial markers and the existing liquid fiducial marker. The authors conclude that the new liquid fiducial marker represents an alternative to the fiducial markers tested.
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: Anders E Hansen; Jonas R Henriksen; Rasmus I Jølck; Frederikke P Fliedner; Linda M Bruun; Jonas Scherman; Andreas I Jensen; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Lilah Moorman; Sorel Kurbegovic; Steen R de Blanck; Klaus R Larsen; Paul F Clementsen; Anders N Christensen; Mads H Clausen; Wenbo Wang; Paul Kempen; Merete Christensen; Niels-Erik Viby; Gitte Persson; Rasmus Larsen; Knut Conradsen; Fintan J McEvoy; Andreas Kjaer; Thomas Eriksen; Thomas L Andresen Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Kathryn H Brown; Mihaela Ghita; Giuseppe Schettino; Kevin M Prise; Karl T Butterworth Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sarah O S Osman; Emily Russell; Raymond B King; Karen Crowther; Suneil Jain; Cormac McGrath; Alan R Hounsell; Kevin M Prise; Conor K McGarry Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Mischa de Ridder; Lara C Gerbrandy; Theo M de Reijke; Karel A Hinnen; Maarten C C M Hulshof Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Steen Riisgaard de Blanck; Jonas Scherman Rydhög; Klaus Richter Larsen; Paul Frost Clementsen; Mirjana Josipovic; Marianne Camille Aznar; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Rasmus Irming Jølck; Lena Specht; Thomas Lars Andresen; Gitte Fredberg Persson Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-08-02