Can bronchoscopically implanted anchored electromagnetic transponders be used to monitor tumor position and lung inflation during deep inspiration breath‐hold lung radiotherapy?. Issue 4 (3rd March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Harris, Wendy; Yorke, Ellen; Li, Henry; Czmielewski, Christian; Chawla, Mohit; Lee, Robert P.; Hotca‐Cho, Alexandra; McKnight, Dominique; Rimner, Andreas; Lovelock, D. Michael
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 49:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 2621
• Page End: 2630
• Publication Date: 2022-03-03
• Subjects: electromagnetic transponders -- lung DIBH -- tumor tracking; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.15565
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of using bronchoscopically implanted anchored electromagnetic transponders (EMTs) as surrogates for 1) tumor position and 2) repeatability of lung inflation during deep‐inspiration breath‐hold (DIBH) lung radiotherapy. Methods: Forty‐one patients treated with either hypofractionated (HF) or conventional (CF) lung radiotherapy on an IRB‐approved prospective protocol using coached DIBH were evaluated for this study. Three anchored EMTs were bronchoscopically implanted into small airways near or within the tumor. DIBH treatment was gated by tracking the EMT positions. Breath‐hold cone‐beam‐CTs (CBCTs) were acquired prior to every HF treatment or weekly for CF patients. Retrospectively, rigid registrations between each CBCT and the breath‐hold planning CT were performed to match to 1) spine, 2) EMTs and 3) tumor. Absolute differences in registration between EMTs and spine were analyzed to determine surrogacy of EMTs for lung inflation. Differences in registration between EMTs and the tumor were analyzed to determine surrogacy of EMTs for tumor position. The stability of the EMTs was evaluated by analyzing the difference between inter‐EMT displacements recorded at treatment from that of the plan for the CF patients, as well as the geometric residual (GR) recorded at the time of treatment. Results: A total of 219 CBCTs were analyzed. The average differences between EMT centroid and spine registration among all CBCTs were 0.45±0.42 cm, 0.29±0.28 cm, and 0.18±0.15 cm in superior‐inferior (SI), anterior‐posterior (AP) and lateral directions, respectively. Only 59% of CBCTs had differences in registration < 0.5 cm for EMT centroid compared to spine, indicating that lung inflation is not reproducible from simulation to treatment. The average differences between EMT centroid and tumor registration among all CBCTs were 0.13±0.13 cm, 0.14±0.13 cm and 0.12±0.12 cm in SI, AP and lateral directions, respectively. Ninety‐five percent of CBCTs resulted in a < 0.5 cm change between EMT centroid and tumor registration, indicating that EMT positions correspond well with tumor position during treatments. Six out of the seven recorded CF patients had average differences in inter‐EMT displacements ≤0.26 cm and average GR ≤0.22 cm, indicating that the EMTs are stable throughout treatment. Conclusions: Bronchoscopically implanted anchored EMTs are good surrogates for tumor position and are reliable for maintaining tumor position when tracked during DIBH treatment, as long as the tumor size and shape are stable. Large differences in registration between EMTs and spine for many treatments suggest that lung inflation achieved at simulation is often not reproduced.