4.7 Article

Correlation between internal fiducial tumor motion and external marker motion for liver tumors imaged with 4D-CT

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.007

关键词

4D-CT imaging; tumor motion; respiratory gating; internal fiducials; hepatobiliary cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We investigated the correlation between the motions of an external marker and internal fiducials implanted in the liver for 8 patients undergoing respiratory-based computed tomography (four-dimensional CT [4D-CT]) procedures. Methods and Materials: The internal fiducials were gold seeds, 3 rum in length and 1.2 mm in diameter. Four patients each had one implanted fiducial, and the other four had three implanted fiducials. The external marker was a plastic box, which is part of the Real-Time Position Management System (RPM) used to track the patient's respiration. Each patient received a standard helical CT scan followed by a time-correlated CT-image acquisition (4D-CT). The 4D-CT images were reconstructed in 10 separate phases covering the entire respiratory cycle. Results: The internal fiducial motion is predominant in the superior-inferior direction, with a range of 7.5-17.5 mm. The correlation between external respiration and internal fiducial motion is best during expiration. For 2 patients with their three fiducials separated by a maximum of 3.2 cm, the motions of the fiducials were well correlated, whereas for 2 patients with more widely spaced fiducials, there was less correlation. Conclusions: In general, there is a good correlation between internal fiducial motion imaged by 4D-CT and external marker motion. We have demonstrated that gating may be best performed at the end of the respiratory cycle. Special attention should be paid to gating for patients whose fiducials do not move in synchrony, because targeting on the correct respiratory amplitude alone would not guarantee that the entire tumor volume is within the treatment field. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据