Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Nov 15;90(4):952-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.028. Epub 2014 Sep 12.

Is diaphragm motion a good surrogate for liver tumor motion?

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
3
School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
4
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: fangfang.yin@duke.edu.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the relationship between liver tumor motion and diaphragm motion.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

Fourteen patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (10 of 14) or liver metastases (4 of 14) undergoing radiation therapy were included in this study. All patients underwent single-slice cine-magnetic resonance imaging simulations across the center of the tumor in 3 orthogonal planes. Tumor and diaphragm motion trajectories in the superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML) directions were obtained using an in-house-developed normalized cross-correlation-based tracking technique. Agreement between the tumor and diaphragm motion was assessed by calculating phase difference percentage, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis (Diff). The distance between the tumor and tracked diaphragm area was analyzed to understand its impact on the correlation between the 2 motions.

RESULTS:

Of all patients, the mean (±standard deviation) phase difference percentage values were 7.1% ± 1.1%, 4.5% ± 0.5%, and 17.5% ± 4.5% in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.98 ± 0.02, 0.97 ± 0.02, and 0.08 ± 0.06 in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. The mean Diff values were 2.8 ± 1.4 mm, 2.4 ± 1.1 mm, and 2.2 ± 0.5 mm in the SI, AP, and ML directions, respectively. Tumor and diaphragm motions had high concordance when the distance between the tumor and tracked diaphragm area was small.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study showed that liver tumor motion had good correlation with diaphragm motion in the SI and AP directions, indicating diaphragm motion in the SI and AP directions could potentially be used as a reliable surrogate for liver tumor motion.

PMID:
25223297
PMCID:
PMC4334361
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.028
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center