Heinz Christian, Gerum Sabine, Freislederer Philipp, Ganswindt Ute, Roeder Falk, Corradini Stefanie, Belka Claus, Niyazi Maximilian
Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU Munich, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Jun 27;11:88. doi: 10.1186/s13014-016-0662-2.
Fiducial markers are the superior method to compensate for interfractional motion in liver SBRT. However this method is invasive and thereby limits its application range. In this retrospective study, the compensation method for the interfractional motion using fiducial markers (gold standard) was compared to a new non-invasive approach, which does rely on the organ motion of the liver and the relative tumor position within this volume.
We analyzed six patients (3 m, 3f) treated with SBRT in 2014. After fiducial marker implantation, all patients received a treatment CT (free breathing, without abdominal compression) and a 4D-CT (consisting of 10 respiratory phases). For all patients the gross tumor volumes (GTVs), internal target volume (ITV), planning target volume (PTV), internal marker target volumes (IMTVs) and the internal liver target volume (ILTV) were delineated based on the CT and 4D-CT images. CBCT imaging was used for the standard treatment setup based on the fiducial markers. According to the patient coordinates the 3 translational compensation values (t x , t y , t z ) for the interfractional motion were calculated by matching the blurred fiducial markers with the corresponding IMTV structures. 4 observers were requested to recalculate the translational compensation values for each CBCT (31) based on the ILTV structures. The differences of the translational compensation values between the IMTV and ILTV approach were analyzed.
The magnitude of the mean absolute 3D registration error with regard to the gold standard overall patients and observers was 0.50 cm ± 0.28 cm. Individual registration errors up to 1.3 cm were observed. There was no significant overall linear correlation between the respiratory motion and the registration error of the ILTV approach.
Two different methods to calculate the translational compensation values for interfractional motion in stereotactic liver therapy were evaluated. The registration accuracy of the ILTV approach is mainly limited by the non-rigid behavior of the liver and the individual registration experience of the observer. The ILTV approach lacks the accuracy that would be desired for stereotactic radiotherapy of the liver.
在肝脏立体定向体部放疗(SBRT)中,基准标记是补偿分次间运动的 superior 方法。然而,这种方法具有侵入性,因此限制了其应用范围。在这项回顾性研究中,将使用基准标记(金标准)补偿分次间运动的方法与一种新的非侵入性方法进行了比较,后者确实依赖于肝脏的器官运动以及该体积内肿瘤的相对位置。
我们分析了2014年接受SBRT治疗的6例患者(3男,3女)。在植入基准标记后,所有患者均接受了一次治疗CT(自由呼吸,无腹部加压)和一次4D-CT(由10个呼吸期组成)。基于CT和4D-CT图像,为所有患者勾画了大体肿瘤体积(GTV)、内部靶区体积(ITV)、计划靶区体积(PTV)、内部标记靶区体积(IMTV)和肝脏内部靶区体积(ILTV)。基于基准标记,使用CBCT成像进行标准治疗摆位。根据患者坐标,通过将模糊的基准标记与相应的IMTV结构进行匹配,计算分次间运动的3个平移补偿值(t x 、t y 、t z )。要求4名观察者根据ILTV结构重新计算每个CBCT(共31个)的平移补偿值。分析了IMTV和ILTV方法之间平移补偿值的差异。
总体患者和观察者相对于金标准的平均绝对3D配准误差大小为0.50 cm±0.28 cm。观察到个别配准误差高达1.3 cm。ILTV方法的呼吸运动与配准误差之间总体上没有显著的线性相关性。
评估了两种计算立体定向肝脏治疗中分次间运动平移补偿值的不同方法。ILTV方法的配准准确性主要受肝脏的非刚性行为和观察者的个体配准经验限制。ILTV方法缺乏肝脏立体定向放射治疗所需的准确性。