Fiducial Marker Placement for Gated Radiotherapy Using Real-Time Tumor-Tracking in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Transarterial and Percutaneous Approaches.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Daisuke Kato, Daisuke Abo, Ryo Morita, Norio Katoh, Naoki Miyamoto, Ryota Yamada, Naoya Kinota, Takaaki Fujii, Kouji Yamasaki, Motoma Kanaya, Hidefumi Aoyama, Kohsuke Kudo
{"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.

应用实时肿瘤追踪的胰腺癌门控放疗的基准标记物定位:经动脉和经皮入路的比较分析。
目的:评价和比较应用实时肿瘤追踪(RTRT)在胰腺癌患者门控放疗中经动脉和经皮基础标志物放置的可行性和安全性。材料和方法:本回顾性队列研究纳入了61例不能手术的胰腺癌患者,这些患者在2015年至2023年间接受了经动脉(n = 34)或经皮(n = 27)基准标志物放置。评估了技术和临床成功、不良事件(ae)、手术时间、标记物数量、肿瘤到标记物的距离、迁移、RTRT的每个标记物可用性以及标记物不可用的原因。结果:两种入路均获得了较高的技术和临床成功率(经动脉91.4%和97.1%;经皮96.3%和96.3%;P = 0.626和1.000),无中重度ae。经动脉组和经皮组轻度不良事件发生率分别为2.9%和7.4% (P = 0.575)。经皮组手术时间较短(35分钟vs. 50分钟[中位数],P = 0.006)。经皮组使用更多的标志物(3比1[中位数],P < 0.001)。两组间肿瘤到标志物的距离具有可比性(经动脉21 mm;经皮26 mm[中位数],P = 0.317)。只有1例(1.4%)发生经皮迁移。在每个标记物的基础上,经动脉组RTRT的标记物可用性(97.1%)高于经皮组(70.8%,P = 0.001)。标记物不可用是由于无法追踪形状(经动脉,1;经皮,12),与肿瘤运动缺乏同步(经皮,6)或其他(经皮,3)。结论:经动脉和经皮基础标志物放置治疗胰腺癌是安全可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.30%
发文量
942
审稿时长
90 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信