Mark K H Chan1, Venus Lee2, C L Chiang2, Francis A S Lee2, Gilbert Law2, N Y Sin3, K L Siu3, Frank C S Wong2, Stewart Y Tung2, Hollis Luk2, Oliver Blanck4. 1. Department of Clinical Oncology, TuenMun Hospital, TuenMun, Hong Kong (S.A.R). ckh456@ha.org.hk. 2. Department of Clinical Oncology, TuenMun Hospital, TuenMun, Hong Kong (S.A.R). 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, TuenMun Hospital, TuenMun, Hong Kong (S.A.R). 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Saphir Radiosurgery Center, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to investigate the potential of lipiodol as a direct tumor surrogate alternative to the diaphragm surrogate on four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4D-CBCT) image guidance for stereotactic radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinomas. METHODS: A total of 29 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) patients treated by stereotactic radiotherapy following transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with homogeneous or partial defective lipiodol retention were included. In all, 4-7 pretreatment 4D-CBCT scans were selected for each patient. For each scan, either lipiodol or the diaphragm was used for 4D registration. Resulting lipiodol/diaphragm motion ranges and position errors relative to the reconstructed midventilation images were analyzed to obtain the motion variations, and group mean (ΔM), systematic (Σ), and random (σ) errors of the treatment setup. RESULTS: Of the lipiodolized tumors, 55 % qualified for direct localization on the 4D-CBCT. Significant correlations of lipiodol and diaphragm positions were found in the left-right (LR), craniocaudal (CC), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. ΔM and σ obtained with lipiodol and diaphragm were similar, agreed to within 0.5 mm in the LR and AP, and 0.3 mm in the CC directions, and Σ differed by 1.4 (LR), 1.1 (CC), and 0.6 (AP) mm. Variations of diaphragm motion range > 5 mm were not observed with lipiodol and in one patient with diaphragm. The margin required for the tumor prediction error using the diaphragm surrogate was 6.7 (LR), 11.7 (CC), and 4.1 (AP) mm. CONCLUSION: Image-guidance combining lipiodol with 4D-CBCT enabled accurate localization of HCC and thus margin reduction. A major limitation was the degraded lipiodol contrast on 4D-CBCT.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to investigate the potential of lipiodol as a direct tumor surrogate alternative to the diaphragm surrogate on four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4D-CBCT) image guidance for stereotactic radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinomas. METHODS: A total of 29 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) patients treated by stereotactic radiotherapy following transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with homogeneous or partial defective lipiodol retention were included. In all, 4-7 pretreatment 4D-CBCT scans were selected for each patient. For each scan, either lipiodol or the diaphragm was used for 4D registration. Resulting lipiodol/diaphragm motion ranges and position errors relative to the reconstructed midventilation images were analyzed to obtain the motion variations, and group mean (ΔM), systematic (Σ), and random (σ) errors of the treatment setup. RESULTS: Of the lipiodolized tumors, 55 % qualified for direct localization on the 4D-CBCT. Significant correlations of lipiodol and diaphragm positions were found in the left-right (LR), craniocaudal (CC), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. ΔM and σ obtained with lipiodol and diaphragm were similar, agreed to within 0.5 mm in the LR and AP, and 0.3 mm in the CC directions, and Σ differed by 1.4 (LR), 1.1 (CC), and 0.6 (AP) mm. Variations of diaphragm motion range > 5 mm were not observed with lipiodol and in one patient with diaphragm. The margin required for the tumor prediction error using the diaphragm surrogate was 6.7 (LR), 11.7 (CC), and 4.1 (AP) mm. CONCLUSION: Image-guidance combining lipiodol with 4D-CBCT enabled accurate localization of HCC and thus margin reduction. A major limitation was the degraded lipiodol contrast on 4D-CBCT.
Authors: G Srimathveeravalli; J Leger; P Ezell; M Maybody; N Gutta; S B Solomon Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2012-05-27 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Robert B Case; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Douglas J Moseley; John Kim; Kristy K Brock; Laura A Dawson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthias Guckenberger; Reinhart A Sweeney; Juergen Wilbert; Thomas Krieger; Anne Richter; Kurt Baier; Gerd Mueller; Otto Sauer; Michael Flentje Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark K H Chan; Dora L W Kwong; Gilbert M L Law; Eric Tam; Anthony Tong; Venus Lee; Sherry C Y Ng Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: You Zhang; Michael R Folkert; Xiaokun Huang; Lei Ren; Jeffrey Meyer; Joubin Nasehi Tehrani; Robert Reynolds; Jing Wang Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2019-07
Authors: Mark Chan; Chi Leung Chiang; Venus Lee; Steven Cheung; Ronnie Leung; Matthew Wong; Frankle Lee; Oliver Blanck Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Connie H M Ho; Chi-Leung Chiang; Francis A S Lee; Horace C W Choi; Jeffery C H Chan; Cynthia S Y Yeung; J J Huang; Mark K H Chan; Oliver Blanck; Frank C S Wong Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-06-22
Authors: Laura Beaton; Mairead Daly; Henry Fj Tregidgo; Helen Grimes; Syed Moinuddin; Chris Stacey; Sami Znati; Julian Hague; Zainab A Bascal; Paul E Wilde; Sarah Cooper; Steven Bandula; Andrew L Lewis; Matthew J Clarkson; Ricky A Sharma Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 3.039