PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV CBCT) to measure interfractional variation in lung tumor position. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight non-small-cell lung cancer patients participated in the study, 4 with respiratory gating and 4 without. All patients underwent MV CBCT scanning at weekly intervals. Contoured planning CT and MV CBCT images were spatially registered based on vertebral anatomy, and displacements of the tumor centroid determined. Setup error was assessed by comparing weekly portal orthogonal radiographs with digitally reconstructed radiographs generated from planning CT images. Hypothesis testing was performed to test the statistical significance of the volume difference, centroid displacement, and setup uncertainty. RESULTS: The vertebral bodies and soft tissue portions of tumor within lung were visible on the MV CBCT scans. Statistically significant systematic volume decrease over the course of treatment was observed for 1 patient. The average centroid displacement between simulation CT and MV CBCT scans were 2.5 mm, -2.0 mm, and -1.5 mm with standard deviations of 2.7 mm, 2.7 mm, and 2.6 mm in the right-left, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior directions. The mean setup errors were smaller than the centroid shifts, while the standard deviations were comparable. In most cases, the gross tumor volume (GTV) defined on the MV CBCT was located on average at least 5 mm inside a 10 mm expansion of the GTV defined on the planning CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: The MV CBCT technique can be used to image lung tumors and may prove valuable for image-guided radiotherapy. Our conclusions must be verified in view of the small patient number.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV CBCT) to measure interfractional variation in lung tumor position. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight non-small-cell lung cancerpatients participated in the study, 4 with respiratory gating and 4 without. All patients underwent MV CBCT scanning at weekly intervals. Contoured planning CT and MV CBCT images were spatially registered based on vertebral anatomy, and displacements of the tumor centroid determined. Setup error was assessed by comparing weekly portal orthogonal radiographs with digitally reconstructed radiographs generated from planning CT images. Hypothesis testing was performed to test the statistical significance of the volume difference, centroid displacement, and setup uncertainty. RESULTS: The vertebral bodies and soft tissue portions of tumor within lung were visible on the MV CBCT scans. Statistically significant systematic volume decrease over the course of treatment was observed for 1 patient. The average centroid displacement between simulation CT and MV CBCT scans were 2.5 mm, -2.0 mm, and -1.5 mm with standard deviations of 2.7 mm, 2.7 mm, and 2.6 mm in the right-left, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior directions. The mean setup errors were smaller than the centroid shifts, while the standard deviations were comparable. In most cases, the gross tumor volume (GTV) defined on the MV CBCT was located on average at least 5 mm inside a 10 mm expansion of the GTV defined on the planning CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: The MV CBCT technique can be used to image lung tumors and may prove valuable for image-guided radiotherapy. Our conclusions must be verified in view of the small patient number.
Authors: David A Jaffray; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Jeff Kapatoes; Ken Ruchala; Weiguo Lu; Chuan Wu; Gustavo Olivera; Lisa Forrest; Wolfgang Tome; Jim Welsh; Robert Jeraj; Paul Harari; Paul Reckwerdt; Bhudatt Paliwal; Mark Ritter; Harry Keller; Jack Fowler; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jussi Sillanpaa; Jenghwa Chang; Gikas Mageras; Ellen Yorke; Fernando De Arruda; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Peter Munro; Edward Seppi; John Pavkovich; Howard Amols Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: K E Rosenzweig; J Hanley; D Mah; G Mageras; M Hunt; S Toner; C Burman; C C Ling; B Mychalczak; Z Fuks; S A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E C Ford; G S Mageras; E Yorke; K E Rosenzweig; R Wagman; C C Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sara C Erridge; Yvette Seppenwoolde; Sara H Muller; Marcel van Herk; Katrien De Jaeger; José S A Belderbos; Liesbeth J Boersma; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Wouter van Elmpt; Michel Öllers; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joseph Santoro; Sergey Kriminski; D Michael Lovelock; Kenneth Rosenzweig; Hassan Mostafavi; Howard I Amols; Gig S Mageras Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Josh Star-Lack; Daniel Shedlock; Dennis Swahn; Dave Humber; Adam Wang; Hayley Hirsh; George Zentai; Daren Sawkey; Isaac Kruger; Mingshan Sun; Eric Abel; Gary Virshup; Mihye Shin; Rebecca Fahrig Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.071