PURPOSE: For patients receiving liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), abdominal compression can reduce organ motion, and daily image guidance can reduce setup error. The reproducibility of liver shape under compression may impact treatment delivery accuracy. The purpose of this study was to measure the interfractional variability in liver shape under compression, after best-fit rigid liver-to-liver registration from kilovoltage (kV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to planning computed tomography (CT) scans and its impact on gross tumor volume (GTV) position. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Evaluable patients were treated in a Research Ethics Board-approved SBRT six-fraction study with abdominal compression. Kilovoltage CBCT scans were acquired before treatment and reconstructed as respiratory sorted CBCT scans offline. Manual rigid liver-to-liver registrations were performed from exhale-phase CBCT scans to exhale planning CT scans. Each CBCT liver was contoured, exported, and compared with the planning CT scan for spatial differences, by use of in house-developed finite-element model-based deformable registration (MORFEUS). RESULTS: We evaluated 83 CBCT scans from 16 patients with 30 GTVs. The mean volume of liver that deformed by greater than 3 mm was 21.7%. Excluding 1 outlier, the maximum volume that deformed by greater than 3 mm was 36.3% in a single patient. Over all patients, the absolute maximum deformations in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior directions were 10.5 mm (SD, 2.2), 12.9 mm (SD, 3.6), and 5.6 mm (SD, 2.7), respectively. The absolute mean predicted impact of liver volume displacements on GTV by use of center of mass displacements was 0.09 mm (SD, 0.13), 0.13 mm (SD, 0.18), and 0.08 mm (SD, 0.07) in the left-right, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interfraction liver deformations in patients undergoing SBRT under abdominal compression after rigid liver-to-liver registrations on respiratory sorted CBCT scans were small in most patients (<5 mm).
PURPOSE: For patients receiving liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), abdominal compression can reduce organ motion, and daily image guidance can reduce setup error. The reproducibility of liver shape under compression may impact treatment delivery accuracy. The purpose of this study was to measure the interfractional variability in liver shape under compression, after best-fit rigid liver-to-liver registration from kilovoltage (kV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to planning computed tomography (CT) scans and its impact on gross tumor volume (GTV) position. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Evaluable patients were treated in a Research Ethics Board-approved SBRT six-fraction study with abdominal compression. Kilovoltage CBCT scans were acquired before treatment and reconstructed as respiratory sorted CBCT scans offline. Manual rigid liver-to-liver registrations were performed from exhale-phase CBCT scans to exhale planning CT scans. Each CBCT liver was contoured, exported, and compared with the planning CT scan for spatial differences, by use of in house-developed finite-element model-based deformable registration (MORFEUS). RESULTS: We evaluated 83 CBCT scans from 16 patients with 30 GTVs. The mean volume of liver that deformed by greater than 3 mm was 21.7%. Excluding 1 outlier, the maximum volume that deformed by greater than 3 mm was 36.3% in a single patient. Over all patients, the absolute maximum deformations in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior directions were 10.5 mm (SD, 2.2), 12.9 mm (SD, 3.6), and 5.6 mm (SD, 2.7), respectively. The absolute mean predicted impact of liver volume displacements on GTV by use of center of mass displacements was 0.09 mm (SD, 0.13), 0.13 mm (SD, 0.18), and 0.08 mm (SD, 0.07) in the left-right, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interfraction liver deformations in patients undergoing SBRT under abdominal compression after rigid liver-to-liver registrations on respiratory sorted CBCT scans were small in most patients (<5 mm).
Authors: J M Balter; L A Dawson; S Kazanjian; C McGinn; K K Brock; T Lawrence; R Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: T Aruga; J Itami; M Aruga; K Nakajima; K Shibata; T Nojo; S Yasuda; T Uno; R Hara; K Isobe; N Machida; H Ito Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: L A Dawson; K K Brock; S Kazanjian; D Fitch; C J McGinn; T S Lawrence; R K Ten Haken; J Balter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K K Herfarth; J Debus; F Lohr; M L Bahner; B Rhein; P Fritz; A Höss; W Schlegel; M F Wannenmacher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Y Negoro; Y Nagata; T Aoki; T Mizowaki; N Araki; K Takayama; M Kokubo; S Yano; S Koga; K Sasai; Y Shibamoto; M Hiraoka Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mihaela Rosu; Laura A Dawson; James M Balter; Daniel L McShan; Theodore S Lawrence; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wouter Wunderink; Alejandra Méndez Romero; Willy de Kruijf; Hans de Boer; Peter Levendag; Ben Heijmen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark K H Chan; Venus Lee; C L Chiang; Francis A S Lee; Gilbert Law; N Y Sin; K L Siu; Frank C S Wong; Stewart Y Tung; Hollis Luk; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Zhao-Chong Zeng; Jinsil Seong; Sang Min Yoon; Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng; Ka-On Lam; Ann-Shing Lee; Ada Law; Jian-Ying Zhang; Yong Hu Journal: Liver Cancer Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 11.740
Authors: John H Heinzerling; Ross Bland; John C Mansour; Roderich E Schwarz; Ezequiel Ramirez; Chuxiong Ding; Ramzi Abdulrahman; Thomas P Boike; Timothy Solberg; Robert D Timmerman; Jeffrey J Meyer Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 3.481