Cargando…

Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies

BACKGROUND: Motion monitoring is essential when treating non-static tumours with pencil beam scanned protons. 4D medical imaging typically relies on the detected body surface displacement, considered as a surrogate of the patient's anatomical changes, a concept similarly applied by most motion...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fattori, Giovanni, Safai, Sairos, Carmona, Pablo Fernández, Peroni, Marta, Perrin, Rosalind, Weber, Damien Charles, Lomax, Antony John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5374699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28359341
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0797-9
_version_ 1782518945841938432
author Fattori, Giovanni
Safai, Sairos
Carmona, Pablo Fernández
Peroni, Marta
Perrin, Rosalind
Weber, Damien Charles
Lomax, Antony John
author_facet Fattori, Giovanni
Safai, Sairos
Carmona, Pablo Fernández
Peroni, Marta
Perrin, Rosalind
Weber, Damien Charles
Lomax, Antony John
author_sort Fattori, Giovanni
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Motion monitoring is essential when treating non-static tumours with pencil beam scanned protons. 4D medical imaging typically relies on the detected body surface displacement, considered as a surrogate of the patient's anatomical changes, a concept similarly applied by most motion mitigation techniques. In this study, we investigate benefits and pitfalls of optical and electromagnetic tracking, key technologies for non-invasive surface motion monitoring, in the specific environment of image-guided, gantry-based proton therapy. METHODS: Polaris SPECTRA optical tracking system and the Aurora V3 electromagnetic tracking system from Northern Digital Inc. (NDI, Waterloo, CA) have been compared both technically, by measuring tracking errors and system latencies under laboratory conditions, and clinically, by assessing their practicalities and sensitivities when used with imaging devices and PBS treatment gantries. Additionally, we investigated the impact of using different surrogate signals, from different systems, on the reconstructed 4D CT images. RESULTS: Even though in controlled laboratory conditions both technologies allow for the localization of static fiducials with sub-millimetre jitter and low latency (31.6 ± 1 msec worst case), significant dynamic and environmental distortions limit the potential of the electromagnetic approach in a clinical setting. The measurement error in case of close proximity to a CT scanner is up to 10.5 mm and precludes its use for the monitoring of respiratory motion during 4DCT acquisitions. Similarly, the motion of the treatment gantry distorts up to 22 mm the tracking result. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the line of sight requirement, the optical solution offers the best potential, being the most robust against environmental factors and providing the highest spatial accuracy. The significant difference in the temporal location of the reconstructed phase points is used to speculate on the need to apply the same monitoring system for imaging and treatment to ensure the consistency of detected phases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5374699
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53746992017-04-03 Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies Fattori, Giovanni Safai, Sairos Carmona, Pablo Fernández Peroni, Marta Perrin, Rosalind Weber, Damien Charles Lomax, Antony John Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Motion monitoring is essential when treating non-static tumours with pencil beam scanned protons. 4D medical imaging typically relies on the detected body surface displacement, considered as a surrogate of the patient's anatomical changes, a concept similarly applied by most motion mitigation techniques. In this study, we investigate benefits and pitfalls of optical and electromagnetic tracking, key technologies for non-invasive surface motion monitoring, in the specific environment of image-guided, gantry-based proton therapy. METHODS: Polaris SPECTRA optical tracking system and the Aurora V3 electromagnetic tracking system from Northern Digital Inc. (NDI, Waterloo, CA) have been compared both technically, by measuring tracking errors and system latencies under laboratory conditions, and clinically, by assessing their practicalities and sensitivities when used with imaging devices and PBS treatment gantries. Additionally, we investigated the impact of using different surrogate signals, from different systems, on the reconstructed 4D CT images. RESULTS: Even though in controlled laboratory conditions both technologies allow for the localization of static fiducials with sub-millimetre jitter and low latency (31.6 ± 1 msec worst case), significant dynamic and environmental distortions limit the potential of the electromagnetic approach in a clinical setting. The measurement error in case of close proximity to a CT scanner is up to 10.5 mm and precludes its use for the monitoring of respiratory motion during 4DCT acquisitions. Similarly, the motion of the treatment gantry distorts up to 22 mm the tracking result. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the line of sight requirement, the optical solution offers the best potential, being the most robust against environmental factors and providing the highest spatial accuracy. The significant difference in the temporal location of the reconstructed phase points is used to speculate on the need to apply the same monitoring system for imaging and treatment to ensure the consistency of detected phases. BioMed Central 2017-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5374699/ /pubmed/28359341 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0797-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Fattori, Giovanni
Safai, Sairos
Carmona, Pablo Fernández
Peroni, Marta
Perrin, Rosalind
Weber, Damien Charles
Lomax, Antony John
Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
title Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
title_full Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
title_fullStr Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
title_full_unstemmed Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
title_short Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
title_sort monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided pbs proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5374699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28359341
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0797-9
work_keys_str_mv AT fattorigiovanni monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies
AT safaisairos monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies
AT carmonapablofernandez monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies
AT peronimarta monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies
AT perrinrosalind monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies
AT weberdamiencharles monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies
AT lomaxantonyjohn monitoringofbreathingmotioninimageguidedpbsprotontherapycomparativeanalysisofopticalandelectromagnetictechnologies