| Literature DB >> 29183337 |
Alexander Jöhl1,2, Marta Bogowicz3,4, Stefanie Ehrbar3,4, Matthias Guckenberger3,4, Stephan Klöck3,4, Mirko Meboldt5, Oliver Riesterer3,4, Melanie Zeilinger6, Marianne Schmid Daners5, Stephanie Tanadini-Lang3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrafractional motion can be a substantial uncertainty in precision radiotherapy. Conventionally, the target volume is expanded to account for the motion. Couch-tracking is an alternative, where the patient is moved to compensate for the tumor motion. However, the couch motion may influence the patient's stress and respiration behavior decreasing the couch-tracking effectiveness.Entities:
Keywords: Motion sickness; Respiration pattern; Robotic couch; Tumor tracking
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29183337 PMCID: PMC5706399 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0925-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Fig. 1The volunteers were positioned supine with arms up. The left panel shows a volunteer with the sensors attached (blue ellipses). The right panel shows the schematic connection and placement of the sensors. The ellipse with two hands shows the placement of the electrodes for heartrate and skin conductivity measurements. LTS: laser triangulation system
Fig. 2The measurement sequence of one volunteer. The line shows the superior-inferior (SI) position of the couch. The first interval (ini (white)) initializes the couch-tracking system. The colored intervals indicate the three segments: static (blue), track (green) and chirp (orange). During the track segments, the couch moved in accordance with the volunteer’s respiration. During the chirp segment, the couch moved sinusoidally independent of the respiration
Results of the two-sided Wilcoxon sign rank tests
| average track vs. average static | track3 vs. track1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of included volunteers |
| ci95 |
| ci95 | |
| Respiration amplitude | 99 | 0.1 | – | < 0.0001 | [−0.04, −0.12] |
| Respiration frequency | 99 | < 0.0001 | [0.08, 0.14] | 1 | – |
| Heartrate | 78 | 0.11 | – | 1 | – |
| Skin conductivity | 79 | 0.46 | – | < 0.0001 | [−0.29, −0.41] |
| Eye-tracking | 95 | 0.02 | [−0.01, −0.1] | 0.003 | [0.04, 0.19] |
Each row shows one respiration characteristic or the result of one physiological measurement. Each row shows two tests, the first compared the average values of the tracking and the static segments, while the second compared the first with the last tracking segment. For each test, the p-value and the 95% confidence interval (ci95) are shown
Fig. 3Box plots of the respiration amplitudes and frequencies. The values of each volunteer were normalized by his overall mean and then averaged over each segment resulting in eight values per volunteer. Each panel shows the distribution of the average amplitude and frequency of the segment over all volunteers
Fig. 4The box plot of the skin conductivity. The skin conductivity values of each volunteer were normalized by his overall mean and then averaged over each segment resulting in eight values per volunteer. Each panel shows the distribution of the segment averaged skin conductivity over all volunteers
Fig. 5Average scores of the final questionnaire statements grouped into four motion sickness components. The higher the score, the higher the agreement with the statements corresponding to the given motion sickness component