PURPOSE: To determine the quiet respiration breathing motion model parameters for lung cancer and nonlung cancer patients. METHODS: 49 free breathing patient 4DCT image datasets (25 scans, cine mode) were collected with simultaneous quantitative spirometry. A cross-correlation registration technique was employed to track the lung tissue motion between scans. The registration results were applied to a lung motion model: X(-->) = X(-->)0 + alpha(-->)v + beta(-->)f, where X(-->) is the position of a piece of tissue located at reference position X(-->)0 during a reference breathing phase (zero tidal volume v, zero airflow f). alpha(-->) is a parameter that characterizes the motion due to air filling (motion as a function of tidal volume v) and beta(-->) is the parameter that accounts for the motion due to the imbalance of dynamical stress distributions during inspiration and exhalation that causes lung motion hysteresis (motion as a function of airflow f). The parameters alpha(-->) and beta(-->) together provide a quantitative characterization of breathing motion that inherently includes the complex hysteresis interplay. The alpha(-->) and beta(-->) distributions were examined for each patient to determine overall general patterns and interpatient pattern variations. RESULTS: For 44 patients, the greatest values of /alpha(-->)/ were observed in the inferior and posterior lungs. For the rest of the patients, /alpha(-->)/ reached its maximum in the anterior lung in three patients and the lateral lung in two patients. The hysteresis motion beta(-->) had greater variability, but for the majority of patients, /beta(-->)/ was largest in the lateral lungs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of the three-dimensional breathing motion model parameters for a large cohort of patients. The model has the potential for noninvasively predicting lung motion. The majority of patients exhibited similar /alpha(-->)/ maps and the /beta(-->)/ maps showed greater interpatient variability. The motion parameter interpatient variability will inform our need for custom radiation therapy motion models. The utility of this model depends on the parameter stability over time, which is still under investigation.
PURPOSE: To determine the quiet respiration breathing motion model parameters for lung cancer and nonlung cancer patients. METHODS: 49 free breathing patient 4DCT image datasets (25 scans, cine mode) were collected with simultaneous quantitative spirometry. A cross-correlation registration technique was employed to track the lung tissue motion between scans. The registration results were applied to a lung motion model: X(-->) = X(-->)0 + alpha(-->)v + beta(-->)f, where X(-->) is the position of a piece of tissue located at reference position X(-->)0 during a reference breathing phase (zero tidal volume v, zero airflow f). alpha(-->) is a parameter that characterizes the motion due to air filling (motion as a function of tidal volume v) and beta(-->) is the parameter that accounts for the motion due to the imbalance of dynamical stress distributions during inspiration and exhalation that causes lung motion hysteresis (motion as a function of airflow f). The parameters alpha(-->) and beta(-->) together provide a quantitative characterization of breathing motion that inherently includes the complex hysteresis interplay. The alpha(-->) and beta(-->) distributions were examined for each patient to determine overall general patterns and interpatient pattern variations. RESULTS: For 44 patients, the greatest values of /alpha(-->)/ were observed in the inferior and posterior lungs. For the rest of the patients, /alpha(-->)/ reached its maximum in the anterior lung in three patients and the lateral lung in two patients. The hysteresis motion beta(-->) had greater variability, but for the majority of patients, /beta(-->)/ was largest in the lateral lungs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of the three-dimensional breathing motion model parameters for a large cohort of patients. The model has the potential for noninvasively predicting lung motion. The majority of patients exhibited similar /alpha(-->)/ maps and the /beta(-->)/ maps showed greater interpatient variability. The motion parameter interpatient variability will inform our need for custom radiation therapy motion models. The utility of this model depends on the parameter stability over time, which is still under investigation.
Authors: H Shirato; S Shimizu; K Kitamura; T Nishioka; K Kagei; S Hashimoto; H Aoyama; T Kunieda; N Shinohara; H Dosaka-Akita; K Miyasaka Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: D Mah; J Hanley; K E Rosenzweig; E Yorke; L Braban; C C Ling; S A Leibel; G Mageras Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel A Low; Michelle Nystrom; Eugene Kalinin; Parag Parikh; James F Dempsey; Jeffrey D Bradley; Sasa Mutic; Sasha H Wahab; Tareque Islam; Gary Christensen; David G Politte; Bruce R Whiting Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Tianyu Zhao; Benjamin White; Kevin L Moore; James Lamb; Deshan Yang; Wei Lu; Sasa Mutic; Daniel A Low Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Benjamin White; Tianyu Zhao; James Lamb; Sara Wuenschel; Jeffrey Bradley; Issam El Naqa; Daniel Low Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Benjamin M White; Anand Santhanam; David Thomas; Yugang Min; James M Lamb; Jack Neylon; Shyam Jani; Sergio Gaudio; Subashini Srinivasan; Daniel Ennis; Daniel A Low Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: David Thomas; James Lamb; Benjamin White; Shyam Jani; Sergio Gaudio; Percy Lee; Dan Ruan; Michael McNitt-Gray; Daniel Low Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ruijiang Li; John H Lewis; Xun Jia; Tianyu Zhao; Weifeng Liu; Sara Wuenschel; James Lamb; Deshan Yang; Daniel A Low; Steve B Jiang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Tai H Dou; David H Thomas; Dylan O'Connell; Jeffrey D Bradley; James M Lamb; Daniel A Low Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M Ranjbar; P Sabouri; S Mossahebi; D Leiser; M Foote; J Zhang; G Lasio; S Joshi; A Sawant Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Guang Li; Jie Wei; Hailiang Huang; Qing Chen; Carl P Gaebler; Tiffany Lin; Amy Yuan; Andreas Rimner; James Mechalakos Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.071