Downloads: 156

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
j.radonc.2014.01.014.pdf516.76 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Intra- and interfractional variations in geometric arrangement between lung tumours and implanted markers.
Authors: Ueki, Nami
Matsuo, Yukinori  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid (unconfirmed)
Nakamura, Mitsuhiro  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
Mukumoto, Nobutaka  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
Iizuka, Yusuke
Miyabe, Yuki  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
Sawada, Akira
Mizowaki, Takashi  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid (unconfirmed)
Kokubo, Masaki
Hiraoka, Masahiro  KAKEN_id
Author's alias: 松尾, 幸憲
Keywords: Lung cancer
Fiducial marker
Positional variation
Issue Date: Mar-2014
Publisher: Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Journal title: Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
Volume: 110
Issue: 3
Start page: 523
End page: 528
Abstract: [Purpose]To quantify the intra- and interfractional variations between lung tumours and implanted markers.[Materials and methods]Gold markers were implanted transbronchially around a lung tumour in fifteen patients. They underwent four-dimensional computed tomography scans twice, and the centroids of the tumour and markers were determined. Intrafractional variations were defined as the residual tumour motions relative to the markers due to respiration from the end-exhale phase. Interfractional variations were defined as the residual setup errors after correction for the position of the implanted markers in end-exhale phase images.[Results]The intrafractional variations differed between patients. The root mean squares of standard deviations for each phase were 0.6, 0.9, and 1.5 mm in the right–left, anterior–posterior, and superior–inferior directions, respectively. The maximum difference in intrafractional variation among 10 phases was correlated with the amplitude of tumour motion in all directions and the tumour-marker distance in the anterior–posterior and superior–inferior directions. The interfractional variations were within 2.5 mm.[Conclusions]The intrafractional variations differed according to the amount of tumour motion and the tumour-marker distance. Additionally, interfractional variations of up to 2.5 mm were observed. Thus, a corresponding margin should be considered during implanted marker-based beam delivery to account for these variations.
Rights: © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
この論文は出版社版でありません。引用の際には出版社版をご確認ご利用ください。This is not the published version. Please cite only the published version.
DOI(Published Version): 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.01.014
PubMed ID: 24560763
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Show full item record

Export to RefWorks

Export Format: 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.