Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2013
Endobiliary stent: marker for patient alignment in image-guided radiotherapy in pancreatic and periampullary cancers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shukla Pragya, Engineer Reena, Chopra Supriya, Shrivastava Shyam Kishore
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse the possibility of using stent in pretreatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images with respect to that on planning kilovoltage computed tomography as tumour surrogate during matching for daily registration in cases of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treated on a TomoTherapy Hi-Art system.
METHODS: Planning CT and pretreatment MVCT of the first and then after every three fractions were transferred to a FocalSim workstation for ten patients. Planning CT of each patient was independently fused with each of the seven MVCT images of that patient. The stent was contoured on all of the eight images for each patient. The difference between the three co-ordinates of centre of mass (CM) of the stent on the planning CT and seven MVCT images was found. The difference between CM of the liver and stents on the planning CT as well as on the MVCT for all seven fractions was also calculated. The mean of these differences across all patients was calculated and analysed.
RESULTS: The mean difference in planning and MVCT CMs for stents in the X, Y and Z directions was 0.13 cm (±0.4), 0.16 cm (±2.2) and 0.35 cm (±0.7), respectively. Average difference between CM of the liver and stent on the planning CT in the X, Y and Z directions was found to be 1.832 cm (±1.64), 5.34 cm (±1.33) and 0.54 cm (±0.26), respectively. Average difference between CM of the liver and CM of stent on the MVCT for that day in the X, Y and Z directions was found to be 1.93 cm (±1.5), 4.6 cm (±1.03) and 0.654 cm (±0.35), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Endobiliary stents are stable tumour localisation surrogates and can be used to correct for interfraction target motion.
METHODS: Planning CT and pretreatment MVCT of the first and then after every three fractions were transferred to a FocalSim workstation for ten patients. Planning CT of each patient was independently fused with each of the seven MVCT images of that patient. The stent was contoured on all of the eight images for each patient. The difference between the three co-ordinates of centre of mass (CM) of the stent on the planning CT and seven MVCT images was found. The difference between CM of the liver and stents on the planning CT as well as on the MVCT for all seven fractions was also calculated. The mean of these differences across all patients was calculated and analysed.
RESULTS: The mean difference in planning and MVCT CMs for stents in the X, Y and Z directions was 0.13 cm (±0.4), 0.16 cm (±2.2) and 0.35 cm (±0.7), respectively. Average difference between CM of the liver and stent on the planning CT in the X, Y and Z directions was found to be 1.832 cm (±1.64), 5.34 cm (±1.33) and 0.54 cm (±0.26), respectively. Average difference between CM of the liver and CM of stent on the MVCT for that day in the X, Y and Z directions was found to be 1.93 cm (±1.5), 4.6 cm (±1.03) and 0.654 cm (±0.35), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Endobiliary stents are stable tumour localisation surrogates and can be used to correct for interfraction target motion.