MENU

Click here to

×

Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel
  1. Home
  2. Meeting Program
  3. All
  4. C-Arm X-Ray Images Can Indicate Accurate Gold Fiducial Marker Identification in a Prostate MRI Only Radiotherapy Workflow

C-Arm X-Ray Images Can Indicate Accurate Gold Fiducial Marker Identification in a Prostate MRI Only Radiotherapy Workflow

C Gustafsson1,2*, E Persson1,2 , A Gunnlaugsson1 , LE Olsson1,2 , (1) Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, (2) Department of Translational Medicine, Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Malmoe, Sweden

Presentations

(Sunday, 7/29/2018) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM

Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: Prostate cancer radiotherapy workflows solely based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are now being clinically used. Intra-prostatic gold fiducial markers (GFM), appear as signal voids in MRI-images while calcifications and bleedings show similar signal behavior. Achieving accurate identification of GFM in an MRI-based workflow thereby constitute a major challenge. Several identification methods have been presented but none has reached 100% accuracy. C-arm X-ray images (CkV-images), acquired at GFM implantation, could provide GFM-position information and be used to indicate correct identification. This would require negligible GFM-migration. The aim of this study was to: 1)study the GFM migration 2)show the feasibility of using CkV-images as an indicator of accurate GFM identification.

Methods: Frontal digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR)- and CkV-images were acquired two weeks apart for 31 patients in a CT-based radiotherapy workflow and for 16 patients in an MRI-based radiotherapy workflow. A common image geometry was defined between the DRR- and CkV-image for each patient. For each image, a point cloud was defined from the GFM center-of-mass coordinates. A rigid registration between the point clouds was performed and the distance between each of the GFM in the DRR- and registered CkV-image was calculated. The distance calculated in the CT-based patient cohort was considered a measure of GFM migration. A statistical test was performed to assess any difference between the cohorts.

Results: The mean GFM-migration assessed in the CT-based patient cohort was 1.2±0.7 mm. The mean absolute distance difference for the GFM center of mass in the MRI-based cohort was 1.7±1.4 mm. No significant difference between the measured total distances of the two patient cohorts could be detected (p-value = 0.37).

Conclusion: A C-Arm X-ray image acquired from the GFM implantation procedure could be used as an indicator of accurate GFM identification. GFM migration was present but did not constitute a problem.

Keywords

Not Applicable / None Entered.

Taxonomy

Not Applicable / None Entered.

Contact Email

Additional Links