Determination of optimal fiducial marker across image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) modalities: visibility and artifact analysis of gold, carbon, and polymer fiducial markers

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visibility and artifact created by gold, carbon, and polymer fiducial markers in a simple phantom across computed tomography (CT), kilovoltage (kV), and megavoltage (MV) linear accelerator imaging and MV tomotherapy imaging. Three types of fiducial markers (gold, carbon, and polymer) were investigated for their visibility and artifacts in images acquired with various modalities and with different imaging parameters (kV, mAs, slice thickness). The imaging modalities include kV CT, 2D linac‐based kilovoltage and megavoltage X‐ray imaging systems, kV cone‐beam CT, and normal and fine tomotherapy imaging. The images were acquired on a phantom constructed using Superflab bolus in which markers of each type were inserted into the center layer. The visibility and artifacts produced by each marker were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. All tested markers could be identified clearly on the acquired CT and linac‐based kV images; gold markers demonstrated the highest contrast. On the CT images, gold markers produced a significant artifact, while no artifacts were observed with polymer markers. Only gold markers were visible when using linac‐based MV and tomotherapy imaging. For linac‐based kV images, the contrast increased with kV and mAs values for all the markers, with the gold being the most pronounced. On CT images, the contrast increased with kV for the gold markers, while decreasing for the polymer and carbon marker. With the bolus phantom used, we found that when kV imaging‐based treatment verification equipment is available, polymer and carbon markers may be the preferred choice for target localization and patient treatment positioning verification due to less image artifacts. If MV imaging will be the sole modality for positioning verification, it may be necessary to use gold markers despite the artifacts they create on the simulation CT images. PACS number: 87

[1]  Rajat J Kudchadker,et al.  Dose perturbations and image artifacts caused by carbon-coated ceramic and stainless steel fiducials used in proton therapy for prostate cancer , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  D. Taussky,et al.  Dosimetric impact and theoretical clinical benefits of fiducial markers for dose escalated prostate cancer radiation treatment. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  R. Mohan,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations of the dosimetric impact of radiopaque fiducial markers for proton radiotherapy of the prostate , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Patricia Tai,et al.  Planning target volume margins for prostate radiotherapy using daily electronic portal imaging and implanted fiducial markers , 2010, Radiation oncology.

[5]  Mehran Yazdi,et al.  An adaptive approach to metal artifact reduction in helical computed tomography for radiation therapy treatment planning: experimental and clinical studies. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  J. Chow,et al.  Dose measurements near a non-radioactive gold seed using radiographic film. , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Yoshihiro Takai,et al.  Evaluation of inter- and intrafraction organ motion during intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer measured by a newly developed on-board image-guided system. , 2005, Radiation medicine.

[8]  James C L Chow,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations of dose near a nonradioactive gold seed. , 2006, Medical physics.

[9]  D. Gladstone,et al.  A numerical simulation of organ motion and daily setup uncertainties: implications for radiation therapy. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  Stephanie Weiss,et al.  Fiducial Markers Implanted during Prostate Brachytherapy for Guiding Conformal External Beam Radiation Therapy , 2004, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[11]  Lei Dong,et al.  Intrafraction prostate motion during IMRT for prostate cancer. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  R. Mohan,et al.  Dosimetric impact of tantalum markers used in the treatment of uveal melanoma with proton beam therapy , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  F. Verhaegen,et al.  Secondary electron fluence perturbation by high-Z interfaces in clinical proton beams: a Monte Carlo study. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  K. Chufal,et al.  Daily online localization using implanted fiducial markers and its impact on planning target volume for carcinoma prostate. , 2010, Journal of cancer research and therapeutics.

[15]  Luca Incrocci,et al.  Deformation of prostate and seminal vesicles relative to intraprostatic fiducial markers. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Dong Wook Kim,et al.  Microscopic gold particle-based fiducial markers for proton therapy of prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  B. Heijmen,et al.  Implications of artefacts reduction in the planning CT originating from implanted fiducial markers. , 2011, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[18]  L. Verhey,et al.  Computer-assisted positioning of radiotherapy patients using implanted radiopaque fiducials. , 1993, Medical physics.

[19]  T. Eade,et al.  Daily online bony correction is required for prostate patients without fiducial markers or soft-tissue imaging. , 2011, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[20]  Jean Pouliot,et al.  Daily electronic portal imaging of implanted gold seed fiducials in patients undergoing radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Robert G. Paden,et al.  Metal artifact reduction image reconstruction algorithm for CT of implanted metal orthopedic devices: a work in progress , 2009, Skeletal Radiology.