[使用动态胸廓运动模型的肿瘤呼吸运动评估方法比较]。

Tatsuya Kamima, Kana Akashi, Shiori Watanabe, Fumiyasu Matsubayashi, Rie Tachibana, Yasushi Ito
{"title":"[使用动态胸廓运动模型的肿瘤呼吸运动评估方法比较]。","authors":"Tatsuya Kamima, Kana Akashi, Shiori Watanabe, Fumiyasu Matsubayashi, Rie Tachibana, Yasushi Ito","doi":"10.6009/jjrt.2024-1500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We evaluated the measurement accuracy and time efficiency of the tumor respiratory motion evaluation methods using a dynamic thorax motion phantom.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 12 patterns of 4DCT images with different tumor displacements and artifacts were used for the measurement. Three methods were employed to measure tumor motion. The first method was the manual delineation of the tumor on each phase CT image with a treatment planning system (RTPS [Manual]). The second method was the automatic delineation of the tumor structure by deformation and copying (RTPS [Auto]). The third method was tumor motion analysis software (Simple 4D Analysis Ver.1.3.1 [Simple 4D]; Triangle Products, Chiba, Japan). For each method, the difference between the phantom motion and the measured value was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The differences (mean±standard deviation: SD) in the superior-inferior direction for RTPS (Manual), RTPS (Auto), and Simple 4D in the without-artifact images were -0.6 mm±0.6 mm, -5.0 mm±2.2 mm, and -1.0 mm±0.0 mm, respectively. The difference in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions was within 1 mm for all methods. Furthermore, the time required for Simple 4D was shorter than for the other methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simple 4D showed the comparable measurement accuracy and improvement time efficiency to RTPS (Manual) and RTPS (Auto), and was useful for tumor respiratory motion analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":74309,"journal":{"name":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[A Comparison of Tumor Respiratory Motion Evaluation Methods Using Dynamic Thorax Motion Phantom].\",\"authors\":\"Tatsuya Kamima, Kana Akashi, Shiori Watanabe, Fumiyasu Matsubayashi, Rie Tachibana, Yasushi Ito\",\"doi\":\"10.6009/jjrt.2024-1500\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We evaluated the measurement accuracy and time efficiency of the tumor respiratory motion evaluation methods using a dynamic thorax motion phantom.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 12 patterns of 4DCT images with different tumor displacements and artifacts were used for the measurement. Three methods were employed to measure tumor motion. The first method was the manual delineation of the tumor on each phase CT image with a treatment planning system (RTPS [Manual]). The second method was the automatic delineation of the tumor structure by deformation and copying (RTPS [Auto]). The third method was tumor motion analysis software (Simple 4D Analysis Ver.1.3.1 [Simple 4D]; Triangle Products, Chiba, Japan). For each method, the difference between the phantom motion and the measured value was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The differences (mean±standard deviation: SD) in the superior-inferior direction for RTPS (Manual), RTPS (Auto), and Simple 4D in the without-artifact images were -0.6 mm±0.6 mm, -5.0 mm±2.2 mm, and -1.0 mm±0.0 mm, respectively. The difference in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions was within 1 mm for all methods. Furthermore, the time required for Simple 4D was shorter than for the other methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simple 4D showed the comparable measurement accuracy and improvement time efficiency to RTPS (Manual) and RTPS (Auto), and was useful for tumor respiratory motion analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.2024-1500\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.2024-1500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们使用动态胸廓运动模型评估了肿瘤呼吸运动评估方法的测量精度和时间效率:方法:共使用了 12 幅具有不同肿瘤位移和伪影的 4DCT 图像进行测量。测量肿瘤运动采用了三种方法。第一种方法是使用治疗计划系统(RTPS [Manual])在每相 CT 图像上手动划定肿瘤。第二种方法是通过变形和复制自动划分肿瘤结构(RTPS [自动])。第三种方法是使用肿瘤运动分析软件(Simple 4D Analysis Ver.1.3.1 [Simple 4D];Triangle Products,日本千叶)。每种方法都测定了模型运动与测量值之间的差异:在无伪影图像中,RTPS(手动)、RTPS(自动)和 Simple 4D 在上-下方向的差异(平均值±标准偏差:SD)分别为 -0.6 mm±0.6 mm、-5.0 mm±2.2 mm 和 -1.0 mm±0.0 mm。所有方法在左右方向和前后方向的差异都在 1 毫米以内。此外,简单 4D 所需的时间也比其他方法短:简易 4D 的测量精度和时间效率与 RTPS(手动)和 RTPS(自动)相当,可用于肿瘤呼吸运动分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[A Comparison of Tumor Respiratory Motion Evaluation Methods Using Dynamic Thorax Motion Phantom].

Purpose: We evaluated the measurement accuracy and time efficiency of the tumor respiratory motion evaluation methods using a dynamic thorax motion phantom.

Methods: A total of 12 patterns of 4DCT images with different tumor displacements and artifacts were used for the measurement. Three methods were employed to measure tumor motion. The first method was the manual delineation of the tumor on each phase CT image with a treatment planning system (RTPS [Manual]). The second method was the automatic delineation of the tumor structure by deformation and copying (RTPS [Auto]). The third method was tumor motion analysis software (Simple 4D Analysis Ver.1.3.1 [Simple 4D]; Triangle Products, Chiba, Japan). For each method, the difference between the phantom motion and the measured value was determined.

Results: The differences (mean±standard deviation: SD) in the superior-inferior direction for RTPS (Manual), RTPS (Auto), and Simple 4D in the without-artifact images were -0.6 mm±0.6 mm, -5.0 mm±2.2 mm, and -1.0 mm±0.0 mm, respectively. The difference in the left-right and anterior-posterior directions was within 1 mm for all methods. Furthermore, the time required for Simple 4D was shorter than for the other methods.

Conclusion: Simple 4D showed the comparable measurement accuracy and improvement time efficiency to RTPS (Manual) and RTPS (Auto), and was useful for tumor respiratory motion analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信