Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Markerless dynamic tumor tracking (MDTT) radiotherapy using diaphragm as a surrogate for liver targets
Maryam Rostamzadeh1, Steven Thomas2, Marie-Laure Camborde2
1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Purpose:
To assess the feasibility of using the diaphragm as a surrogate for liver targets during MDTT.
Methods:
Diaphragm as surrogate for markers: a dome-shaped phantom with implanted markers was fabricated and underwent dual-orthogonal fluoroscopy sequences on the Vero4DRT linac. Ten patients participated in an IRB-approved, feasibility study to assess the MDTT workflow. All images were analyzed using an in-house program to back-project the diaphragm/markers position to the isocenter plane. ExacTrac imager log files were analyzed. Diaphragm as tracking structure for MDTT: The phantom "diaphragm" was contoured as a markerless tracking structure (MTS) and exported to Vero4DRT/ExacTrac. A single field plan was delivered to the phantom film plane under static and MDTT conditions. In the patient study, the diaphragm tracking structure was contoured on CT breath-hold-exhale datasets. The MDTT workflow was applied until just prior to MV beam-on.
Results:
Diaphragm as surrogate for markers: phantom data confirmed the in-house 3D back-projection program was functioning as intended. In patients, the diaphragm/marker relative positions had a mean ± RMS difference of 0.70 ± 0.89, 1.08 ± 1.26, and 0.96 ± 1.06 mm in ML, SI, and AP directions. Diaphragm as tracking structure for MDTT: Building a respiratory-correlation model using the diaphragm as surrogate for the implanted markers was successful in phantom/patients. During the tracking verification imaging step, the phantom mean ± SD difference between the image-detected and predicted "diaphragm" position was 0.52 ± 0.18 mm. The 2D film gamma (2%/2 mm) comparison (static to MDTT deliveries) was 98.2%. In patients, the mean difference between the image-detected and predicted diaphragm position was 2.02 ± 0.92 mm. The planning target margin contribution from MDTT diaphragm tracking is 2.2, 5.0, and 4.7 mm in the ML, SI, and AP directions.
Conclusion:
In phantom/patients, the diaphragm motion correlated well with markers' motion and could be used as a surrogate. MDTT workflows using the diaphragm as the MTS is feasible using the Vero4DRT linac and could replace the need for implanted markers for liver radiotherapy.
