| Literature DB >> 26356007 |
Marija Marčan, Denis Pavliha, Bor Kos, Tadeja Forjanič, Damijan Miklavčič.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatments based on electroporation are a new and promising approach to treating tumors, especially non-resectable ones. The success of the treatment is, however, heavily dependent on coverage of the entire tumor volume with a sufficiently high electric field. Ensuring complete coverage in the case of deep-seated tumors is not trivial and can in best way be ensured by patient-specific treatment planning. The basis of the treatment planning process consists of two complex tasks: medical image segmentation, and numerical modeling and optimization.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26356007 PMCID: PMC4565468 DOI: 10.1186/1475-925X-14-S3-S4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Figure 1Diagram of the workflow of the web-based tool for visualization of the electric field distribution.
Figure 2An example of a treatment report file for ECT of liver. A. 3D model of the case with marked positions of electrodes. B. Table containing optimal voltages per electrode pair. C. Cumulative coverage curves for the tumor tissue. D. Electric field distribution overlaid on original patient images
Figure 3Commercially available electrodes. A. Hexagonal needle electrodes. B. Linear needle electrodes. C. Finger electrodes with axial needles. D. Finger electrode with perpendicular needles. E. Variable-geometry needle electrodes. F. Angiodynamics Nanoknife Variable geometry needle electrodes. All electrodes pictured in A-E are available from IGEA SrI.
Figure 4Schematical representation of the web tool framework with main components and technologies used in their realization.
Figure 5The main working screens of the application. A. Cases (i.e. uploading images and selecting the active patient). B. Workspace (i.e. selecting the procedure, validating segmentation results, downloading final results, etc.). C. Electrode insertion module, in which electrode type and entry point can be specified.
Performance times of different tool components during user evaluation of the tool and level of user interaction.
| Component | Level of interaction | Avg. time - User 1 | Avg. time - User 2 | Avg. time - User 3 | Avg. time - User 4 | Avg. time - User 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image upload | Interaction | 29.5 s | 177 s | 13.5 s | 85 s | 7.5 s |
| Automatic segmentation | Automatic | N/A | 59 s | 25 min | N/A | 50.3 s |
| Manual segmentation | Interaction | 14 min | N/A | 5 min | 5 min | 13 min |
| Manual validation | Interaction | N/A | 10 min | N/A | N/A | 53 min |
| Tissue type / Imaging modality / Interaction level | liver tumor / MRI / manual | pelvic bone / CT / automatic | 1) liver / CT / automatic; | bone / CT / manual | 1) canine brain / MRI / automatic; | |