Masanori Takamiya1, Mitsuhiro Nakamura2, Mami Akimoto2, Nami Ueki2, Masahiro Yamada2, Hiroaki Tanabe3, Yukinori Matsuo2, Takashi Mizowaki2, Masaki Kokubo4, Masahiro Hiraoka2, Akio Itoh5. 1. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan and Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. 3. Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe 650-0047, Japan. 4. Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe 650-0047, Japan and Department of Radiation Oncology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe 650-0047, Japan. 5. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the target localization error (TLE) in terms of the distance between the target and the localization point estimated from the surrogates (|TMD|), the average of respiratory motion for the surrogates and the target (|aRM|), and the number of fiducial markers used for estimating the target (n). METHODS: This study enrolled 17 lung cancer patients who subsequently underwent four fractions of real-time tumor tracking irradiation. Four or five fiducial markers were implanted around the lung tumor. The three-dimensional (3D) distance between the tumor and markers was at maximum 58.7 mm. One of the markers was used as the target (Pt), and those markers with a 3D |TMDn| ≤ 58.7 mm at end-exhalation were then selected. The estimated target position (Pe) was calculated from a localization point consisting of one to three markers except Pt. Respiratory motion for Pt and Pe was defined as the root mean square of each displacement, and |aRM| was calculated from the mean value. TLE was defined as the root mean square of each difference between Pt and Pe during the monitoring of each fraction. These procedures were performed repeatedly using the remaining markers. To provide the best guidance on the answer with n and |TMD|, fiducial markers with a 3D |aRM ≥ 10 mm were selected. Finally, a total of 205, 282, and 76 TLEs that fulfilled the 3D |TMD| and 3D |aRM| criteria were obtained for n = 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Multiple regression analysis (MRA) was used to evaluate TLE as a function of |TMD| and |aRM| in each n. RESULTS: |TMD| for n = 1 was larger than that for n = 3. Moreover, |aRM| was almost constant for all n, indicating a similar scale for the marker's motion near the lung tumor. MRA showed that |aRM| in the left-right direction was the major cause of TLE; however, the contribution made little difference to the 3D TLE because of the small amount of motion in the left-right direction. The TLE calculated from the MRA ((MRA)TLE) increased as |TMD| and |aRM| increased and adversely decreased with each increment of n. The median 3D (MRA)TLE was 2.0 mm (range, 0.6-4.3 mm) for n = 1, 1.8 mm (range, 0.4-4.0 mm) for n = 2, and 1.6 mm (range, 0.3-3.7 mm) for n = 3. Although statistical significance between n = 1 and n = 3 was observed in all directions, the absolute average difference and the standard deviation of the (MRA)TLE between n = 1 and n = 3 were 0.5 and 0.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large |TMD| and |aRM| increased the differences in TLE between each n; however, the difference in 3D (MRA)TLEs was, at most, 0.6 mm. Thus, the authors conclude that it is acceptable to continue fiducial marker-based radiotherapy as long as |TMD| is maintained at ≤58.7 mm for a 3D |aRM| ≥ 10 mm.
PURPOSE: To assess the target localization error (TLE) in terms of the distance between the target and the localization point estimated from the surrogates (|TMD|), the average of respiratory motion for the surrogates and the target (|aRM|), and the number of fiducial markers used for estimating the target (n). METHODS: This study enrolled 17 lung cancerpatients who subsequently underwent four fractions of real-time tumor tracking irradiation. Four or five fiducial markers were implanted around the lung tumor. The three-dimensional (3D) distance between the tumor and markers was at maximum 58.7 mm. One of the markers was used as the target (Pt), and those markers with a 3D |TMDn| ≤ 58.7 mm at end-exhalation were then selected. The estimated target position (Pe) was calculated from a localization point consisting of one to three markers except Pt. Respiratory motion for Pt and Pe was defined as the root mean square of each displacement, and |aRM| was calculated from the mean value. TLE was defined as the root mean square of each difference between Pt and Pe during the monitoring of each fraction. These procedures were performed repeatedly using the remaining markers. To provide the best guidance on the answer with n and |TMD|, fiducial markers with a 3D |aRM ≥ 10 mm were selected. Finally, a total of 205, 282, and 76 TLEs that fulfilled the 3D |TMD| and 3D |aRM| criteria were obtained for n = 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Multiple regression analysis (MRA) was used to evaluate TLE as a function of |TMD| and |aRM| in each n. RESULTS: |TMD| for n = 1 was larger than that for n = 3. Moreover, |aRM| was almost constant for all n, indicating a similar scale for the marker's motion near the lung tumor. MRA showed that |aRM| in the left-right direction was the major cause of TLE; however, the contribution made little difference to the 3D TLE because of the small amount of motion in the left-right direction. The TLE calculated from the MRA ((MRA)TLE) increased as |TMD| and |aRM| increased and adversely decreased with each increment of n. The median 3D (MRA)TLE was 2.0 mm (range, 0.6-4.3 mm) for n = 1, 1.8 mm (range, 0.4-4.0 mm) for n = 2, and 1.6 mm (range, 0.3-3.7 mm) for n = 3. Although statistical significance between n = 1 and n = 3 was observed in all directions, the absolute average difference and the standard deviation of the (MRA)TLE between n = 1 and n = 3 were 0.5 and 0.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large |TMD| and |aRM| increased the differences in TLE between each n; however, the difference in 3D (MRA)TLEs was, at most, 0.6 mm. Thus, the authors conclude that it is acceptable to continue fiducial marker-based radiotherapy as long as |TMD| is maintained at ≤58.7 mm for a 3D |aRM| ≥ 10 mm.
Authors: Chun-Chien Shieh; Vincent Caillet; Michelle Dunbar; Paul J Keall; Jeremy T Booth; Nicholas Hardcastle; Carol Haddad; Thomas Eade; Ilana Feain Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Marco Mueller; Per Poulsen; Rune Hansen; Wilko Verbakel; Ross Berbeco; Dianne Ferguson; Shinichiro Mori; Lei Ren; John C Roeske; Lei Wang; Pengpeng Zhang; Paul Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Maksat Haytmyradov; Hassan Mostafavi; Adam Wang; Liangjia Zhu; Murat Surucu; Rakesh Patel; Arun Ganguly; Michelle Richmond; Roberto Cassetta; Matthew M Harkenrider; John C Roeske Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Chen Hong-Jhe; Kuo Chin-Yuan; Tu Ming-Shium; Wang Fu-Wei; Chen Ru-Yih; Hsueh Kuang-Chieh; Pan Hsiang-Ju; Chou Ming-Yueh; Chen Pan-Ming; Pan Chih-Chuan Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.889