Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:30:50.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calypso® 4D Localization System: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2014

C. Silva ,
D. Mateus ,
M. Eiras  and
S. Vieira
C. Silva*
Affiliation:
Escola Superior de Tecnologias da Saúde de Lisboa, Portugal Centro Clínico Fundação Champalimaud, Lisboa, Portugal
D. Mateus
Affiliation:
Centro Clínico Fundação Champalimaud, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Eiras
Affiliation:
Escola Superior de Tecnologias da Saúde de Lisboa, Portugal
S. Vieira
Affiliation:
Centro Clínico Fundação Champalimaud, Lisboa, Portugal
*
Correspondence to: Célia Silva, R. Outeiro Cacho, 6, Loureira, 2495-161 Sta Cat Serra, Portugal. Tel: 00351919628745. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

Calypso® 4D Localization System is a system based on electromagnetic transponders detection enabling precise 3D localisation and continuous tracking of tumour target. This review intended to provide information in order to (1) show how Calypso® 4D Localization System works, (2) to present advantages and disadvantages of this system, (3) to gather information from several clinical studies and, finally, (4) to refer Calypso® System as a tool in dynamic multileaf collimator studies for target motion compensation.

Methods

A structured search was carried out on B-On platform. The key words used in this research were ‘Calypso’, ‘Transponder’, ‘Electromagnetic Localization’, ‘Electromagnetic Tracking’, ‘Target Localization’, ‘Intrafraction Motion’ and ‘DMLC’.

Review

Treatment the implanted transponders are excited by an electromagnetic field and resonate back. These frequencies are detected and Calypso® software calculates the position of the transponders. If the movement detected is larger than the limits previously defined, irradiation can be stopped. The system has been proven to be submillimetre accurate.

Discussion

Calypso® System has been presented as an accurate tool in prostate radiotherapy treatments. The application of this system to other clinical sites is being developed.

Conclusion

The Calypso® System allows real-time localisation and monitoring of the target, without additional ionising radiation administration. It has been a very useful tool in prostate cancer treatment.

Keywords

Beacon® transpondersCalypso®DMLClungprostate
Type
Literature Reviews
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 473 - 483
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Kitamura, K, Shirato, H, Shimizu, S et al. Registration accuracy and possible migration of internal fiducial gold marker implanted in prostate and liver treated with real-time tumor tracking radiation therapy (RTRT). Radiother Oncol 2002; 62: 275–281.Google Scholar
2. Kitamura, K, Shirato, H, Seppenwoolde, Y et al. Three-dimensional intrafractional movement of prostate measured during real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy in supine and prone treatment positions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53: 1117–1123.Google Scholar
3. Shirato, H, Harada, T, Harabayashi, T et al. Feasibility of insertion/implantation of 2.0-mm-diameter gold internal fiducial markers for precise setup and real-time tumor tracking in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 240–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Dawson, L A, Brock, K K, Kazanjian, S et al. The reproducibility of organ position using active breathing control (ABC) during liver radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 1410–1421.Google Scholar
5. Balter, J M, Lam, K L, Sandler, H M et al. Automated localization of the prostate at the time of treatment using implanted radiopaque markers: technical feasibility. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 33: 1281–1286.Google Scholar
6. Litzenberg, D W, Willoughby, T R, Balter, J M et al. Positional stability of electromagnetic transponders used for prostate localization and continuous, real-time tracking system and on-board kilovoltage imaging system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68 (4): 1199–1206.Google Scholar
7. Schweikard, A, Shiomi, H, Adler, J. Respiration tracking in radiosurgery. Med Phys 2004; 31: 2738–2741.Google Scholar
8. Meeks, S L, Bova, F J, Wagner, T H et al. Image localization for frameless stereotactic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 1291–1299.Google Scholar
9. Bova, F J, Meeks, S L, Friedman, W A et al. Optic-guided stereotactic radiotherapy. Med Dosim 1998; 23: 221–228.Google Scholar
10. Roberts, D W, Strohbein, J W, Hatch, J F. A frameless stereotactic computerized tomographic imaging and the operating microscope. J Neurosurg 1986; 65: 545–549.Google Scholar
11. Watanabe, E, Mayanagi, Y, Kosugi, Y et al. Open surgery assisted by the articulated, sensitive arm. Neurosurgery 1991; 28: 792–800.Google Scholar
12. Suess, O, Suess, S, Mularksi, S et al. Study on the clinical application of pulsed DC magnetic technology for tracking of intraoperative head motion during frameless stereotaxy. Head Face Med 2006; 2: 10.Google Scholar
13. Keall, P J, Todor, A D, Vedam, S S et al. On the use of EPID-based implanted marker tracking for 4D radiotherapy. Med Phys 2004; 31: 3492–3499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Meeks, S L, Buatti, J M, Bouchet, L G et al. Ultrasound-guided extracranial radiosurgery: technique and application. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55: 1092–1101.Google Scholar
15. Tome, W A, Meeks, S L, Orton, N P et al. Commissioning and quality assurance of an optically guided three-dimensional ultrasound target localization system for radiotherapy. Med Phys 2002; 29: 1781–1788.Google Scholar
16. Sharp, G C, Jiang, S B, Shimizu, S et al. Tracking errors in a prototype real-time tumor tracking system. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 5347–5356.Google Scholar
17. Shinohara, E T, Kassaee, A, Mitra, N et al. Feasibility of electromagnetic transponder use to monitor inter- and intrafractional motion in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (2): 566–573.Google Scholar
18. Noel, C, Parikh, P J, Roy, M et al. Prediction of intrafraction prostate motion: accuracy of pre- and post-treatment imaging and intermittent imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73 (3): 692–698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Gierga, D P, Brewer, J, Sharp, G C et al. The correlation between internal and external markers for abdominal tumors: implications for respiratory gating. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 1551–1558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Beddar, A S, Kainz, K, Briere, T M et al. Correlation between internal fiducial tumor motion and external marker motion for liver tumors imaged with 4D-CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67: 630–638.Google Scholar
21 Shirato, H, Oita, M, Fujita, K et al. Feasibility of synchronization of realtime tumor-tracking radiotherapy and intensitymodulated radiotherapy from viewpoint of excessive dose from fluoroscopy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60: 334–341.Google Scholar
22. Murphy, M J, Eidens, R, Vertatschitsch, E, Wright, J N. The effect of transponder motion on the accuracy of the Calypso electromagnetic localization system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72 (1): 295–299.Google Scholar
23. Quigley, M M, Mate, T P, Sylvester, J E. Prostate tumor alignment and continuous, real-time adaptive radiation therapy using electromagnetic fiducials: clinical and cost-utility analyses. Urol Oncol 2009; 27: 473–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Li, H S, Chetty, I J, Enke, C H et al. Dosimetric consequences of intrafraction prostate motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71 (3): 801–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Willoughby, T R, Kupelian, P A, Pouliot, J et al. Target localization and real-time tracking using the Calypso 4D localization system in patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65 (2): 528–534.Google Scholar
26. King, B L, Butler, W M, Merrick, G S et al. Electromagnetic transponders indicate prostate size increase followed by decrease during the course of external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79 (5): 1350–1357.Google Scholar
27. Mate, T P, Krag, D, Wright, J N, Dimmer, S. A new system to perform continuous target tracking for radiation and surgery using non-ionizing alternating current electromagnetics. Int Cong Series 2004; 1268: 425–430.Google Scholar
28. Zou, W, Betancourt, R, Yin, L et al. Effects on the photon beam from an electromagnetic array used for patient localization and tumor tracking. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14 (3): 72–80.Google Scholar
29. Rassian-Szegedi, P, Wang, B, Szegedi, M et al. Individualized margins for prostate patients using a wireless localization and tracking system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12 (3): 194–204.Google Scholar
30. Ogunleye, T, Rossi, P J, Jani, A B, Fox, T, Elder, E. Performance evaluation of Calypso 4D localization and kilovoltage image guidance systems for interfraction motion management of prostate patients. ScientificWorldJournal 2009; 9: 449–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Balter, J M, Wright, J N, Newell, L J et al. Accuracy of a wireless localization system for radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61 (3): 933–937.Google Scholar
32. Santanam, L, Malinowski, K, Hubenshmidt, J et al. Fiducial-based translational localization accuracy of electromagnetic tracking system and on-board kilovoltage imaging system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70 (3): 892–899.Google Scholar
33. Litzenberg, D W, Balter, J M, Hadley, S W et al. The influence of intra-fraction motion on margins for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 548–553.Google Scholar
34. Berger, A P, Gozzi, C, Steiner, H et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among three protocols with 6, 10, and 15 cores. J Urol 2004; 171: 1478–1480.Google Scholar
35. Henry, A M, Wilkinson, C, Wylie, J P et al. Trans-perineal implantation of radio-opaque treatment verification markers into the prostate: an assessment of procedure related morbidity, patient acceptability, and accuracy. Radiother Oncol 2004; 73: 57–59.Google Scholar
36. Kimple, R J, Wallen, E M, Pruthi, R, Marks, L B. A simple algorithm to assess patient suitability for Calypso-seed implantation for four-dimensional prostate localization. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (1): 252–262.Google Scholar
37. Shah, A P, Kupelian, P A, Willoughby, T R, Meeks, S L. Expanding the use of real-time electromagnetic tracking in radiation oncology. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12 (4): 34–49.Google Scholar
38. Bittner, N, Butler, W M, Reed, J L et al. Electromagnetic tracking of intrafraction prostate displacement among patients externally immobilized in the prone position. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 77: 490–495.Google Scholar
39. Smith, R L, Sawant, A, Santanam, L et al. Integration of real-time internal electromagnetic position monitoring coupled with dynamic multileaf collimator tracking: an intensity-modulated radiation therapy feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74 (3): 868–875.Google Scholar
40. Su, Z, Zhang, L, Murphy, M, Williamson, J. Analysis of prostate patient setup and tracking data: potential intervention strategies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81 (3): 880–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Dawson, L A, Litzenberg, D W, Brock, K K et al. A comparison of ventilatory prostate movement in four treatment positions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48: 319–323.Google Scholar
42. Langen, K, Willoughby, T, Meeks, S et al. Observations on realtime prostate gland motion using electromagnetic tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: 1084–1090.Google Scholar
43. Xie, Y, Djajaputra, D, King, C R et al. Intrafractional motion of the prostate during hypofractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 236–246.Google Scholar
44. Bittner, N, Butler, W M, Reed, J L et al. Electromagnetic tracking of intrafraction prostate displacement in patients externally immobilized in the prone position. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77 (2): 490–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Mayse, M L, Parikh, P J, Lechleiter, K M et al. Bronchoscopic implantation of a novel wireless electromagnetic transponder in the canine lung: a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Whyte, R I, Crownover, R, Murphy, M J et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for lung tumors: preliminary report of a phase I trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 75: 1097–1101.Google Scholar
47. Kupelian, P A, Forbes, A, Willoughby, T R et al. Implantation and stability of metallic fiducials within pulmonary lesions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 777–785.Google Scholar
48. Imura, M, Yamazaki, K, Kubota, K C et al. Histopathologic consideration of fiducial gold markers inserted for real-time tumortracking radiotherapy against lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 382–384.Google Scholar
49. Mayse, M L, Smith, R L, Park, M et al. Development of a nonmigrating electromagnetic transponder system for lung tumor tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: S430–S430.Google Scholar
50. Keall, P J, Cattell, H, Pokhrel, D et al. Geometric accuracy of a realtime target tracking system with dynamic multileaf collimator tracking system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: e1579–e1584.Google Scholar
51. Sawant, A, Venkat, R, Srivastava, V et al. Management of three dimensional intrafraction motion through real-time DMLC tracking. Med Phys 2008; 35: e2050–e2061.Google Scholar
52. Poulsen, P R, Cho, B, Sawant, A, Keall, P. Implementation of a new method for dynamic multileaf collimator tracking of prostate motion in arc radiotherapy using a single kV imager. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76: e914–e923.Google Scholar
53. Poulsen, P R, Cho, B, Ruan, D et al. Dynamic multileaf collimator tracking of respiratory target motion based on a single kilovoltage imager during arc radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77: e600–e607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54 Wu, J, Ruan, D, Cho, B et al. Electromagnetic detection and real-time DMLC adaptation to target rotation during radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (3): 545–553.Google Scholar
55. Sawant, A, Smith, R L, Venkat, R B et al. Toward submillimeter accuracy in the management of intrafraction motion: the integration of real-time internal position monitoring and multileaf collimator target tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74 (2): 575–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. Krauss, A, Nill, S, Tacke, M, Oelfke, U. Electromagnetic real-time tumor position monitoring and dynamic multileaf collimator tracking using a Siemens 160 MLC: geometric and dosimetric accuracy of an integrated system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79 (2): 579–587.Google Scholar
57. Srivastava, V, Keall, P J, Sawant, A et al. Accurate prediction of intra-fraction motion using a modified linear adaptive filter. Med Phys 2007; 34: 2546.Google Scholar
58. Bayley, A, Catton, C, Haycocks, T et al. A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2004; 70: 37–44.Google Scholar
59. Weber, D, Nouet, P, Rouzaud, M, Miralbell, R. Patient positioning in prostate radiotherapy: is prone better than supine? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47 (2): 365–371.Google Scholar
60. Wilder, R, Chittenden, L, Mesa, A et al. A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77 (1): 165–170.Google Scholar
61. Kitamura, K, Shirato, H, Seppenwoolde, Y et al. Three dimensional intrafractional movement of prostate measured during real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy in supine and prone treatment positions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53 (5): 1117–1123.Google Scholar