Christer Andre Jensen1, Ana María Acosta Roa1, Jo-Åsmund Lund2,3, Jomar Frengen3. 1. a Department of Oncology , Ålesund Hospital , Ålesund , Norway. 2. b Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine , Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Trondheim , Norway. 3. c Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital , Trondheim University Hospital , Trondheim , Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrafraction motion in breast cancer radiation therapy (BCRT) has not yet been thoroughly described in the literature. It has been observed that baseline drift occurs as part of the intrafraction motion. This study aims to measure baseline drift and its incidence in free-breathing BCRT patients using an in-house developed laser system for tracking the position of the sternum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline drift was monitored in 20 right-sided breast cancer patients receiving free breathing 3D-conformal RT by using an in-house developed laser system which measures one-dimensional distance in the AP direction. A total of 357 patient respiratory traces from treatment sessions were logged and analysed. Baseline drift was compared to patient positioning error measured from in-field portal imaging. RESULTS: The mean overall baseline drift at end of treatment sessions was -1.3 mm for the patient population. Relatively small baseline drift was observed during the first fraction; however it was clearly detected already at the second fraction. Over 90% of the baseline drift occurs during the first 3 min of each treatment session. The baseline drift rate for the population was -0.5 ± 0.2 mm/min in the posterior direction the first minute after localization. Only 4% of the treatment sessions had a 5 mm or larger baseline drift at 5 min, all towards the posterior direction. Mean baseline drift in the posterior direction in free breathing BCRT was observed in 18 of 20 patients over all treatment sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a substantial baseline drift in free breathing BCRT patients. No clear baseline drift was observed during the first treatment session; however, baseline drift was markedly present at the rest of the sessions. Intrafraction motion due to baseline drift should be accounted for in margin calculations.
BACKGROUND: Intrafraction motion in breast cancer radiation therapy (BCRT) has not yet been thoroughly described in the literature. It has been observed that baseline drift occurs as part of the intrafraction motion. This study aims to measure baseline drift and its incidence in free-breathing BCRT patients using an in-house developed laser system for tracking the position of the sternum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline drift was monitored in 20 right-sided breast cancerpatients receiving free breathing 3D-conformal RT by using an in-house developed laser system which measures one-dimensional distance in the AP direction. A total of 357 patient respiratory traces from treatment sessions were logged and analysed. Baseline drift was compared to patient positioning error measured from in-field portal imaging. RESULTS: The mean overall baseline drift at end of treatment sessions was -1.3 mm for the patient population. Relatively small baseline drift was observed during the first fraction; however it was clearly detected already at the second fraction. Over 90% of the baseline drift occurs during the first 3 min of each treatment session. The baseline drift rate for the population was -0.5 ± 0.2 mm/min in the posterior direction the first minute after localization. Only 4% of the treatment sessions had a 5 mm or larger baseline drift at 5 min, all towards the posterior direction. Mean baseline drift in the posterior direction in free breathing BCRT was observed in 18 of 20 patients over all treatment sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a substantial baseline drift in free breathing BCRT patients. No clear baseline drift was observed during the first treatment session; however, baseline drift was markedly present at the rest of the sessions. Intrafraction motion due to baseline drift should be accounted for in margin calculations.
Authors: André Haraldsson; Sofie Ceberg; Crister Ceberg; Sven Bäck; Silke Engelholm; Per E Engström Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Yuhang Zhang; Rojano Kashani; Yue Cao; Theodore S Lawrence; Adam Johansson; James M Balter Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: D Reitz; G Carl; S Schönecker; M Pazos; P Freislederer; M Niyazi; U Ganswindt; F Alongi; M Reiner; C Belka; S Corradini Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 3.481