Marker-based quantification of interfractional tumor position variation and the use of markers for setup verification in radiation therapy for esophageal cancer

• Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology Vol. 117; no. 3; pp. 412 - 418
• Main Authors: Jin, Peng, van der Horst, Astrid, de Jong, Rianne, van Hooft, Jeanin E, Kamphuis, Martijn, van Wieringen, Niek, Machiels, Melanie, Bel, Arjan, Hulshof, Maarten C.C.M, Alderliesten, Tanja
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01-12-2015
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chemoradiotherapy - methods; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods; Dose Fractionation; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology; Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy; Female; Fiducial markers; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Interfractional position variation; Male; Middle Aged; Movement; Radiation therapy; Retrospective Studies; Setup verification; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; Tumor Burden; Setup verification; Fiducial markers; Interfractional position variation; Radiation therapy; Esophageal cancer
• ISSN: 0167-8140; 1879-0887
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.10.005

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to quantify interfractional esophageal tumor position variation using markers and investigate the use of markers for setup verification. Materials and methods Sixty-five markers placed in the tumor volumes of 24 esophageal cancer patients were identified in computed tomography (CT) and follow-up cone-beam CT. For each patient we calculated pairwise distances between markers over time to evaluate geometric tumor volume variation. We then quantified marker displacements relative to bony anatomy and estimated the variation of systematic ( Σ ) and random errors ( σ ). During bony anatomy-based setup verification, we visually inspected whether the markers were inside the planning target volume (PTV) and attempted marker-based registration. Results Minor time trends with substantial fluctuations in pairwise distances implied tissue deformation. Overall, Σ ( σ ) in the left–right/cranial–caudal/anterior–posterior direction was 2.9(2.4)/4.1(2.4)/2.2(1.8) mm; for the proximal stomach, it was 5.4(4.3)/4.9(3.2)/1.9(2.4) mm. After bony anatomy-based setup correction, all markers were inside the PTV. However, due to large tissue deformation, marker-based registration was not feasible. Conclusions Generally, the interfractional position variation of esophageal tumors is more pronounced in the cranial–caudal direction and in the proximal stomach. Currently, marker-based setup verification is not feasible for clinical routine use, but markers can facilitate the setup verification by inspecting whether the PTV covers the tumor volume adequately.