Fiducial Marker Placement for Gated Radiotherapy Using Real-Time Tumor-Tracking in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Transarterial and Percutaneous Approaches.
{"title":"Fiducial Marker Placement for Gated Radiotherapy Using Real-Time Tumor-Tracking in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Transarterial and Percutaneous Approaches.","authors":"Daisuke Kato, Daisuke Abo, Ryo Morita, Norio Katoh, Naoki Miyamoto, Ryota Yamada, Naoya Kinota, Takaaki Fujii, Kouji Yamasaki, Motoma Kanaya, Hidefumi Aoyama, Kohsuke Kudo","doi":"10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess and compare the feasibility and safety of transarterial and percutaneous fiducial marker placements for gated radiotherapy using real-time tumor-tracking (RTRT) in patients with pancreatic cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 61 patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer who underwent transarterial (n = 34) or percutaneous (n = 27) fiducial marker placement between 2015 and 2023. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), procedure time, number of markers, tumor-to-marker distance, migration, per-marker availability for RTRT, and reasons for marker unavailability were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both approaches achieved high technical and clinical success rates (transarterial approach, 91.4% and 97.1%; percutaneous approach, 96.3% and 96.3%; P = .626 and P = 1.000) without moderate or severe AEs. Mild AEs occurred in 2.9% and 7.4% of patients in the transarterial and percutaneous groups (P = .575). The median procedure time was shorter in the percutaneous group (35 vs 50 minutes, P = .006). The percutaneous group used more markers (3 vs 1 [median], P < .001). The median tumor-to-marker distance was comparable between groups (transarterial approach, 21 mm; percutaneous approach, 26 mm; P = .317). Migration occurred in only 1 percutaneous case (1.4%). On a per-marker basis, the transarterial group had higher marker availability for RTRT (97.1%) than the percutaneous group (70.8%, P = .001). Marker unavailability was due to untraceable shape (transarterial approach, 1; percutaneous approach, 12), lack of synchronization with tumor motion (percutaneous approach, 6), or others (percutaneous approach, 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Transarterial and percutaneous fiducial marker placements are safe and feasible for administering RTRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":49962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To assess and compare the feasibility and safety of transarterial and percutaneous fiducial marker placements for gated radiotherapy using real-time tumor-tracking (RTRT) in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 61 patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer who underwent transarterial (n = 34) or percutaneous (n = 27) fiducial marker placement between 2015 and 2023. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), procedure time, number of markers, tumor-to-marker distance, migration, per-marker availability for RTRT, and reasons for marker unavailability were assessed.
Results: Both approaches achieved high technical and clinical success rates (transarterial approach, 91.4% and 97.1%; percutaneous approach, 96.3% and 96.3%; P = .626 and P = 1.000) without moderate or severe AEs. Mild AEs occurred in 2.9% and 7.4% of patients in the transarterial and percutaneous groups (P = .575). The median procedure time was shorter in the percutaneous group (35 vs 50 minutes, P = .006). The percutaneous group used more markers (3 vs 1 [median], P < .001). The median tumor-to-marker distance was comparable between groups (transarterial approach, 21 mm; percutaneous approach, 26 mm; P = .317). Migration occurred in only 1 percutaneous case (1.4%). On a per-marker basis, the transarterial group had higher marker availability for RTRT (97.1%) than the percutaneous group (70.8%, P = .001). Marker unavailability was due to untraceable shape (transarterial approach, 1; percutaneous approach, 12), lack of synchronization with tumor motion (percutaneous approach, 6), or others (percutaneous approach, 3).
Conclusions: Transarterial and percutaneous fiducial marker placements are safe and feasible for administering RTRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.
期刊介绍:
JVIR, published continuously since 1990, is an international, monthly peer-reviewed interventional radiology journal. As the official journal of the Society of Interventional Radiology, JVIR is the peer-reviewed journal of choice for interventional radiologists, radiologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, and other clinicians who seek current and reliable information on every aspect of vascular and interventional radiology. Each issue of JVIR covers critical and cutting-edge medical minimally invasive, clinical, basic research, radiological, pathological, and socioeconomic issues of importance to the field.