1
|
Igbo BT, Jentsch C, Linge A, Plesca I, Kuzay Y, Löck S, Kumaravadivel MS, Doms S, Stolz-Kieslich L, Pollack D, Brückmann S, Tittlbach H, Weitz J, Aust D, Apolle R, Schmitz M, Troost EGC. Correlation of microscopic tumor extension with tumor microenvironment in esophageal cancer patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2024; 200:595-604. [PMID: 38727811 PMCID: PMC11186916 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-024-02234-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2023] [Accepted: 03/17/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In the era of image-guided adaptive radiotherapy, definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) is a challenge in various solid tumors, including esophageal cancer (EC). Many tumor microenvironmental factors, e.g., tumor cell proliferation or cancer stem cells, are hypothesized to be involved in microscopic tumor extension (MTE). Therefore, this study assessed the expression of FAK, ILK, CD44, HIF-1α, and Ki67 in EC patients after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy followed by tumor resection (NRCHT+R) and correlated these markers with the MTE. METHODS Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor resection specimens of ten EC patients were analyzed using multiplex immunofluorescence staining. Since gold fiducial markers had been endoscopically implanted at the proximal and distal tumor borders prior to NRCHT+R, correlation of the markers with the MTE was feasible. RESULTS In tumor resection specimens of EC patients, the overall percentages of FAK+, CD44+, HIF-1α+, and Ki67+ cells were higher in tumor nests than in the tumor stroma, with the outcome for Ki67+ cells reaching statistical significance (p < 0.001). Conversely, expression of ILK+ cells was higher in tumor stroma, albeit not statistically significantly. In three patients, MTE beyond the fiducial markers was found, reaching up to 31 mm. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that the overall expression of FAK, HIF-1α, Ki67, and CD44 was higher in tumor nests, whereas that of ILK was higher in tumor stroma. Differences in the TME between patients with residual tumor cells in the original CTV compared to those without were not found. Thus, there is insufficient evidence that the TME influences the required CTV margin on an individual patient basis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE BO-EK-148042017 and BO-EK-177042022 on 20.06.2022, DRKS00011886, https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00011886 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin Terfa Igbo
- Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christina Jentsch
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
| | - Annett Linge
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Ioana Plesca
- Institute of immunology, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Yalçin Kuzay
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Mani Sankari Kumaravadivel
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Susanne Doms
- Institute of immunology, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Liane Stolz-Kieslich
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Daniela Pollack
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Sascha Brückmann
- Institute for Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Hannes Tittlbach
- Institute for Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jürgen Weitz
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery (VTG), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Daniela Aust
- Institute of immunology, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Institute for Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Rudi Apolle
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Marc Schmitz
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- Institute of immunology, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
- Institute for Pathology and Tumor and Normal Tissue Bank of the University Cancer Center (UCC), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shamshad M, Møller DS, Mortensen HR, Ehmsen ML, Jensen MF, Hoffmann L. Bone versus soft-tissue setup in proton therapy for patients with oesophageal cancer. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:994-1003. [PMID: 35775236 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2022.2091949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of patient positioning based on either bone or soft-tissue matching for PT in oesophageal cancer and its impact on plan adaptation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two retrospective patient cohorts treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Cohort A consisted of 26 consecutive patients with a planning 4DCT scan (CT1) and a surveillance 4DCT scan (CT2) at fraction ten. Cohort B consisted of 17 patients selected based on large anatomical changes identified during treatment resulting in a rescan (CT2). Mean dose to the iCTV (sum of the CTVs in all respiratory phases) was 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions or 41.4 Gy (RBE) in 23 fractions. A nominal pencil beam scanning plan was created using two posterior beams and robust optimization (5 mm setup, 3.5% range). For each patient, two rigid registrations were made between average (avg) CT1 and CT2: a match on the vertebral column (bone match) and a match on the iCTV (soft-tissue match). Robustness towards setup (5 mm) and range (3.5%) errors was evaluated at CT2. Robustness towards respiration was evaluated by recalculation of the plan on all phases of the CT2 scan. Dose coverage <96% would trigger adaptation. The statistical significance (p-value <0.05) between dose coverage for the two registration methods was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS All plans fulfilled V95%iCTV>99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTV>97% for all respiratory phases and robustness scenarios at CT1. In two (8%) and three (18%) patients, V95%iCTV<96% on CT2 for Cohort A and B, respectively when bone match was used. For soft-tissue match, V95%iCTV >96% for all patients. V95%iCTV was significantly higher (p-value = 0.0001) for soft-tissue match than bone match. CONCLUSION Anatomical changes during the treatment course led to target dose deterioration and a need for plan adaptation when using a bone match.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad Shamshad
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Ditte Sloth Møller
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | | | | | - Lone Hoffmann
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hoffmann L, Mortensen H, Shamshad M, Berbee M, Bizzocchi N, Bütof R, Canters R, Defraene G, Lykkegaard Ehmsen M, Fiorini F, Haustermans K, Hulley R, Korevaar EW, Clarke M, Makocki S, Muijs CT, Murray L, Nicholas O, Nordsmark M, Radhakrishna G, Thomas M, Troost EGC, Vilches-Freixas G, Visser S, Weber DC, Sloth Møller D. Treatment planning comparison in the PROTECT-trial randomising proton versus photon beam therapy in oesophageal cancer: results from eight european centres. Radiother Oncol 2022; 172:32-41. [PMID: 35513132 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.04.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2022] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4Gy(RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. RESULTS All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal>99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal>97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst-case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter-fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. CONCLUSION Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter-fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lone Hoffmann
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Dept. of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | - Hanna Mortensen
- Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Muhammad Shamshad
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Dept. of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Maaike Berbee
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, The Netherlands
| | - Nicola Bizzocchi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Richard Canters
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, The Netherlands
| | - Gilles Defraene
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven - Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | - Karin Haustermans
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven - Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium; University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ryan Hulley
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea University Board, UL AND Swansea University Medical School, United Kingdom
| | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Matthew Clarke
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Sebastian Makocki
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christina T Muijs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Luke Murray
- Rutherford Cancer Centre, Shinfield, Reading, United Kingdom
| | - Owen Nicholas
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea University Board, UL AND Swansea University Medical School, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Melissa Thomas
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven - Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium; University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Rossendorf, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Gloria Vilches-Freixas
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Visser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland; Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ditte Sloth Møller
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Dept. of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Møller DS, Poulsen PR, Hagner A, Dufour M, Nordsmark M, Nyeng TB, Mortensen HR, Lutz CM, Hoffmann L. Strategies for Motion Robust Proton Therapy With Pencil Beam Scanning for Esophageal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:539-548. [PMID: 33974885 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.04.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2020] [Revised: 03/28/2021] [Accepted: 04/26/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy of esophageal cancer is superior to photon radiation therapy in terms of normal tissue sparing. However, respiratory motion and anatomical changes may compromise target dose coverage owing to density changes, geometric misses, and interplay effects. Here we investigate the combined effect on clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and compare proton therapy with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS This study includes 26 patients with esophageal cancer previously treated with IMRT planned on 4-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT). For each patient, 7 proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) plans were created with different field configurations and optimization strategies. The effect of respiration was investigated by calculating the phase doses, 4D dose, and 4D dynamic dose (including interplay effects). The effect of anatomical changes was investigated by recalculating all plans on all phases of a 4D-CT surveillance scan. RESULTS The most robust PBS plans were achieved using 2 posterior beams requiring coverage of planning target volume (PTV) and simultaneously using robust optimization (RO) of CTV (2PAPTVRO), resulting in only 1 patient showing V95%CTV <97% in 1 or more phases of the planning CT. For the least robust PBS plans obtained using lateral + posterior beams and CTV-RO, but not requiring PTV coverage (2LPRO), 10 patients showed underdosage. For IMRT, 2 patients showed underdosage. Interplay effects reduced V95%CTV significantly when delivering only 1 fraction, but the effects generally averaged out after 10 fractions. The effect of interplay was significantly larger for RO-only plans compared with plans optimized with RO combined with PTV coverage. Combining the effect of anatomical changes and respiration on the 4D-CT surveillance scan resulted in V95%CTV <97% for 3 2PAPTVRO, 16 2LPRO, and 8 IMRT patients. CONCLUSIONS PBS using posterior beam angles was more robust to anatomical changes and respiration than IMRT. The effect of respiration was enhanced when anatomical changes were present. Single fraction interplay effects deteriorated the dose distribution but were averaged out after 10 fractions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ditte Sloth Møller
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | - Per Rugaard Poulsen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Andreas Hagner
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Mathieu Dufour
- Department of Physics, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - Lone Hoffmann
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thomas M, De Roover R, van der Merwe S, Lambrecht M, Defraene G, Haustermans K. The use of tumour markers in oesophageal cancer to quantify setup errors and baseline shifts during treatment. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2020; 26:8-14. [PMID: 33251342 PMCID: PMC7677672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.11.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2020] [Revised: 11/01/2020] [Accepted: 11/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Implantation of solid gold markers safe. Inter-fractional motion for markers in distal oesophagus largest cranio-caudally. Reduced radiotherapy treatment margins with soft-tissue vs. bony-anatomy matching. Impact of intra-fractional baseline shifts on margin calculation rather small.
Purpose To prospectively evaluate the feasibility of solid gold marker placement in oesophageal cancer patients and to quantify inter-fractional and intra-fractional (baseline shift) marker motion during radiation treatment. Radiotherapy target margins and matching strategies were investigated. Materials/methods Thirty-four markers were implanted by echo-endoscopy in 10 patients. Patients received a planning 4D CT, daily pre-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) and a post-treatment CBCT for at least five fractions. For fractions with both pre- and post-treatment CBCT, marker displacement between planning CT and pre-treatment CBCT (inter-fractional) and between pre-treatment and post-treatment CBCT (intra-fractional; only for fractions without rotational treatment couch correction) were calculated in left–right (LR), cranio-caudal (CC) and anterior-posterior (AP) direction after bony-anatomy and soft-tissue matching. Systematic/random setup errors were estimated; treatment margins were calculated. Results No serious adverse events occurred. Twenty-three (67.6%) markers were visible during radiotherapy (n = 3 middle oesophagus, n = 16 distal oesophagus, n = 4 proximal stomach). Margins for inter-fractional displacement after bony-anatomy match depended on the localisation of the primary tumour and were 11.2 mm (LR), 16.4 mm (CC) and 8.2 mm (AP) for distal markers. Soft-tissue matching reduced the CC margin for these markers (16.4 mm to 10.5 mm). The mean intra-fractional shift of 12 distal markers was 0.4 mm (LR), 2.3 mm (CC) and 0.7 mm (AP). Inclusion of this shift resulted in treatment margins for distal markers of 12.8 mm (LR), 17.3 mm (CC) and 10.4 mm (AP) after bony-anatomy matching and 12.4 mm (LR), 11.4 mm (CC) and 9.7 mm (AP) after soft-tissue matching. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the implantation of gold markers was safe, albeit less stable compared to other marker types. Inter-fractional motion was largest cranio-caudally for markers in the distal oesophagus, which was reduced after soft-tissue compared to bony-anatomy matching. The impact of intra-fractional baseline shifts on margin calculation was rather small.
Collapse
Key Words
- 2D, two-dimensional
- 3D, three-dimensional
- 4D, four-dimensional
- AP, anterior-posterior
- CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography
- CC, cranio-caudal
- CT, computed tomography
- CTV, clinical target volume
- CTVtotal, total clinical target volume
- DoF, degree-of-freedom
- EUS, endoscopic ultrasound
- Esophageal cancer
- FDG-PET/CT, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography
- Fiducial gold markers
- GM, grand mean
- GTV, gross tumour volume
- IMRT, intensity modulated radiation therapy
- Inter-fractional motion
- Intra-fractional baseline shifts
- LR, left-right
- MRI, magnetic resonance imaging
- Matching strategies
- OAR, organ at risk
- PTV, planning target volume
- Radiotherapy treatment margins
- iCTV, internal clinical target volume
- kV, kilovoltage
- nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiation
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa Thomas
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium.,University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Robin De Roover
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium.,University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Schalk van der Merwe
- University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maarten Lambrecht
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium.,University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Gilles Defraene
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Karin Haustermans
- KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Oncology - Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium.,University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Popescu DC, Dumitrache I, Caramihai SI, Cernaianu MO. High Precision Positioning with Multi-Camera Setups: Adaptive Kalman Fusion Algorithm for Fiducial Markers. SENSORS 2020; 20:s20092746. [PMID: 32403452 PMCID: PMC7248896 DOI: 10.3390/s20092746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Revised: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
The paper addresses the problem of fusing the measurements from multiple cameras in order to estimate the position of fiducial markers. The objectives are to increase the precision and to extend the working area of the system. The proposed fusion method employs an adaptive Kalman algorithm which is used for calibrating the setup of cameras as well as for estimating the pose of the marker. Special measures are taken in order to mitigate the effect of the measurement noise. The proposed method is further tested in different scenarios using a Monte Carlo simulation, whose qualitative precision results are determined and compared. The solution is designed for specific positioning and alignment tasks in physics experiments, but also, has a degree of generality that makes it suitable for a wider range of applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dragos Constantin Popescu
- Faculty of Automatic Control and Computers, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei No. 313, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; (I.D.); (S.I.C.)
- Extreme Light Infrastructure-Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP)/Horia Hulubei National Institute for R&D in Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH), Str. Reactorului No. 30, Magurele, 077125 Bucharest, Romania
- Correspondence: (D.C.P.); (M.O.C.)
| | - Ioan Dumitrache
- Faculty of Automatic Control and Computers, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei No. 313, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; (I.D.); (S.I.C.)
- Department of Science and Information Technology of the Romanian Academy, Cal. Victoriei No. 125, 010071 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Simona Iuliana Caramihai
- Faculty of Automatic Control and Computers, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei No. 313, 060042 Bucharest, Romania; (I.D.); (S.I.C.)
| | - Mihail Octavian Cernaianu
- Extreme Light Infrastructure-Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP)/Horia Hulubei National Institute for R&D in Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH), Str. Reactorului No. 30, Magurele, 077125 Bucharest, Romania
- Correspondence: (D.C.P.); (M.O.C.)
| |
Collapse
|