Ruth Colgan1, Matthew James1, Frederick R Bartlett2, Anna M Kirby3, Ellen M Donovan1. 1. 1 Physics Department, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. 2. 2 Southampton Oncology Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 3. 3 Department of Radiotherapy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breath-hold stability and constancy for a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) technique in a retrospective analysis. METHODS: Movie loop sequences of electronic portal image data from multiple breath holds in a cohort of 19 patients were used to assess within and between breath-hold stability. In vivo dosimetry data based on electronic portal imaging (EPI) were analysed for 31 VBH patients plus a cohort of free-breathing (FB) patients to provide a reference. A phantom experiment simulated the impact on dose of FB, breath hold and unplanned release of breath hold. RESULTS: 165/174 (93%) movie loop data sets had no detectable displacement. For the remaining 12, median displacement = 1.5 mm and maximum displacement = 3 mm (one patient on one fraction). In vivo dosimetry data analysis showed a median dose difference measured to planned of -0.2% (VBH) and -0.1% (FB). Dose distribution evaluation (γ) pass rates were 84% (VBH) and 91% (FB) including the lung region; 93% and 96% with a lung override. Unplanned release of phantom breath-hold position changed median dose by ≤1% and degraded γ pass rates to 79-62%. Failing regions were mostly in the periphery of the treated volume. CONCLUSION: The data confirmed that multiple VBHs using visual monitoring are stable; in vivo dose verification via EPI was within expected and acceptable levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data provide further reassurance that VBH is a safe technique for cardiac sparing breast radiotherapy and support its rapid, widespread implementation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breath-hold stability and constancy for a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) technique in a retrospective analysis. METHODS: Movie loop sequences of electronic portal image data from multiple breath holds in a cohort of 19 patients were used to assess within and between breath-hold stability. In vivo dosimetry data based on electronic portal imaging (EPI) were analysed for 31 VBH patients plus a cohort of free-breathing (FB) patients to provide a reference. A phantom experiment simulated the impact on dose of FB, breath hold and unplanned release of breath hold. RESULTS: 165/174 (93%) movie loop data sets had no detectable displacement. For the remaining 12, median displacement = 1.5 mm and maximum displacement = 3 mm (one patient on one fraction). In vivo dosimetry data analysis showed a median dose difference measured to planned of -0.2% (VBH) and -0.1% (FB). Dose distribution evaluation (γ) pass rates were 84% (VBH) and 91% (FB) including the lung region; 93% and 96% with a lung override. Unplanned release of phantom breath-hold position changed median dose by ≤1% and degraded γ pass rates to 79-62%. Failing regions were mostly in the periphery of the treated volume. CONCLUSION: The data confirmed that multiple VBHs using visual monitoring are stable; in vivo dose verification via EPI was within expected and acceptable levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data provide further reassurance that VBH is a safe technique for cardiac sparing breast radiotherapy and support its rapid, widespread implementation.
Authors: Markus Wendling; Robert J W Louwe; Leah N McDermott; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Marcel van Herk; Ben J Mijnheer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Leah K Schubert; Vinai Gondi; Evan Sengbusch; David C Westerly; Emilie T Soisson; Bhudatt R Paliwal; Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Minesh P Mehta; Rakesh R Patel; Wolfgang A Tomé; George M Cannon Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: H M Lu; E Cash; M H Chen; L Chin; W J Manning; J Harris; B Bornstein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S Darby; P McGale; C Correa; C Taylor; R Arriagada; M Clarke; D Cutter; C Davies; M Ewertz; J Godwin; R Gray; L Pierce; T Whelan; Y Wang; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David M Edmunds; Lone Gothard; Komel Khabra; Anna Kirby; Poonam Madhale; Helen McNair; David Roberts; K K Tang; Richard Symonds-Tayler; Fatemeh Tahavori; Kevin Wells; Ellen Donovan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Andrew L Fielding; Jessica Benitez Mendieta; Sarah Maxwell; Catherine Jones Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: María Adela Poitevin-Chacón; Rubí Ramos-Prudencio; José Alfonso Rumoroso-García; Alejandro Rodríguez-Laguna; Julio Cesar Martínez-Robledo Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Nicolle Dunkerley; Frederick R Bartlett; Anna M Kirby; Philip M Evans; Ellen M Donovan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Leigh Conroy; Rosanna Yeung; Elizabeth Watt; Sarah Quirk; Karen Long; Alana Hudson; Tien Phan; Wendy L Smith Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102