Comparative analysis of traditional and coiled fiducials implanted during EUS for pancreatic cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy.
Comparative analysis of traditional and coiled fiducials implanted during EUS for pancreatic cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gie.2012.07.006
复制
发表时间：
2012-11
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Herman JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Khashab MA;Kim KJ;Tryggestad EJ;Wild AT;Roland T;Singh VK;Lennon AM;Shin EJ;Ziegler MA;Sharaiha RZ;Canto MI;Herman JM
EUS 引导的基准放置有利于图像引导放射治疗 (IGRT)。比较两种类型的市售基准的技术成功、复杂性、可见性和迁移。回顾性、单中心、比较研究。三级医疗中心。对传统基准点 (TF)（5 毫米长，0.8 毫米直径）和 Visicoil 基准点 (VF)（10 毫米长，0.35 毫米直径）进行了比较。使用线性 19 号（对于 TF）或 22 号（对于 VF）针放置基准点。使用主观可视化评分系统（0-2；0 = 不可见，1 = 几乎不可见，2 = 清晰可见）来评估 CT 上的可见度。基准点迁移计算为基准点间距离的变化。两种类型基准点的技术成功、复杂性、可见性和迁移。 39 名局部晚期胰腺癌患者接受了 EUS 引导下放置 103 个基准点（77 个 TF，26 个 VF）。对于 19 号针，每位患者放置的基准点的平均数量为 2.66 个（标准差 0.67）；对于 22 号针，为 2.60 个（标准差 0.70）（P = .83）。没有遇到术中或术后并发症。 The median visibility score for TFs was significantly better than that for VFs, both when scores of 0 were and were not included (2.00, interquartile range [IQR] 2.00-2.00 vs 1.75, IQR 1.50-2.00, P = .009 and 2.00, IQR 2.00-2.00 vs 2.00, IQR 1.50-2.00，P < .0001，分别）。两种类型基准点之间的平均迁移没有显着差异（TF 为 0.8 mm [IQR 0.4-1.6 mm]，VF 为 1.3 mm [IQR 0.6-1.5 mm]；P = 0.72）。回顾性、非随机设计。与 VF 相比，TF 的能见度明显更好。 TF 和 VF 的基准迁移程度没有显着差异。放置基准点的平均数量没有显着差异，表明 TF 和 VF 部署的技术难度相似。
EUS-guided fiducial placement facilitates image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). To compare 2 types of commercially available fiducials for technical success, complications, visibility, and migration. Retrospective, single-center, comparative study. Tertiary-care medical center. Traditional fiducials (TFs) (5-mm length, 0.8-mm diameter) and Visicoil fiducials (VFs) (10-mm length, 0.35-mm diameter) were compared. Fiducials were placed using linear 19-gauge (for TFs) or 22-gauge (for VFs) needles. A subjective visualization scoring system (0-2; 0 = not visible, 1 = barely visible, 2 = clearly visible) was used to assess visibility on CT. Fiducial migration was calculated as a change in interfiducial distance. Technical success, complications, visibility, and migration of 2 types of fiducials. Thirty-nine patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-guided placement of 103 fiducials (77 TFs, 26 VFs). The mean number of fiducials placed per patient was 2.66 (standard deviation 0.67) for the 19-gauge needle and 2.60 (standard deviation 0.70) for the 22-gauge needle (P = .83). No intra- or postprocedural complications were encountered. The median visibility score for TFs was significantly better than that for VFs, both when scores of 0 were and were not included (2.00, interquartile range [IQR] 2.00-2.00 vs 1.75, IQR 1.50-2.00, P = .009 and 2.00, IQR 2.00-2.00 vs 2.00, IQR 1.50-2.00, P < .0001, respectively). The mean migration was not significantly different between the 2 types of fiducials (0.8 mm [IQR 0.4-1.6 mm] for TFs vs 1.3 mm [IQR 0.6-1.5 mm] for VFs; P = .72). Retrospective, nonrandomized design. Visibility was significantly better for TFs compared with VFs. The degree of fiducial migration was not significantly different for TFs and VFs. There was no significant difference in the mean number of fiducials placed, indicating a similar degree of technical difficulty for TF and VF deployment.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3
作者：
Stephens, J;Kuhn, J;Lieberman, Z
通讯作者：
Lieberman, Z
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.009
发表时间：
2010-02-01
影响因子：
7
作者：
Goldstein, Seth D.;Ford, Eric C.;Herman, Joseph M.
通讯作者：
Herman, Joseph M.
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Ammar, Tarek;Cote, Gregory A.;Azar, Riad R.
通讯作者：
Azar, Riad R.
影响因子：
45.3
作者：
Moore, Malcolm J.;Goldstein, David;Parulekar, Wendy
通讯作者：
Parulekar, Wendy
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Ford, EC;Mageras, GS;Ling, CC
通讯作者：
Ling, CC