AIM AND BACKGROUND: IGRT based on bone matching may produce a large target positioning error in terms of the reproducibility of expiration breath-holding on SBRT for liver cancer. We evaluated the intrafractional and interfractional errors using the diaphragm position at the end of expiration by utilising Abches and analysed the factor of the interfractional error. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intrafractional and interfractional errors were measured using a couple of frontal kV images, planning computed tomography (pCT) and daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Moreover, max-min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT were calculated. RESULTS: The mean ± SD (standard deviation) of the intra-fraction diaphragm position variation in the frontal kV images was 1.0 ± 0.7 mm in the C-C direction. The inter-fractional diaphragm changes were 0.4 ± 4.6 mm in the C-C direction, 1.4 ± 2.2 mm in the A-P direction, and -0.6 ± 1.8 mm in the L-R direction. There were no significant differences between the maximum value of the max-min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT. CONCLUSIONS: Residual intrafractional variability of diaphragm position is minimal, but large interfractional diaphragm changes were observed. There was a small effect in the patient condition difference between pCT and CBCT. The impact of the difference in daily breath-holds on the interfractional diaphragm position was large or the difference in daily breath-holding heavily influenced the interfractional diaphragm change.
AIM AND BACKGROUND: IGRT based on bone matching may produce a large target positioning error in terms of the reproducibility of expiration breath-holding on SBRT for liver cancer. We evaluated the intrafractional and interfractional errors using the diaphragm position at the end of expiration by utilising Abches and analysed the factor of the interfractional error. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intrafractional and interfractional errors were measured using a couple of frontal kV images, planning computed tomography (pCT) and daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Moreover, max-min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT were calculated. RESULTS: The mean ± SD (standard deviation) of the intra-fraction diaphragm position variation in the frontal kV images was 1.0 ± 0.7 mm in the C-C direction. The inter-fractional diaphragm changes were 0.4 ± 4.6 mm in the C-C direction, 1.4 ± 2.2 mm in the A-P direction, and -0.6 ± 1.8 mm in the L-R direction. There were no significant differences between the maximum value of the max-min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT. CONCLUSIONS: Residual intrafractional variability of diaphragm position is minimal, but large interfractional diaphragm changes were observed. There was a small effect in the patient condition difference between pCT and CBCT. The impact of the difference in daily breath-holds on the interfractional diaphragm position was large or the difference in daily breath-holding heavily influenced the interfractional diaphragm change.
Authors: J W Wong; M B Sharpe; D A Jaffray; V R Kini; J M Robertson; J S Stromberg; A A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marco Esposito; Giulia Maggi; Carmelo Marino; Laura Bottalico; Elisabetta Cagni; Claudia Carbonini; Michelina Casale; Stefania Clemente; Valentina D'Alesio; David Fedele; Francesca Romana Giglioli; Valeria Landoni; Anna Martinotti; Roberta Nigro; Lidia Strigari; Elena Villaggi; Pietro Mancosu Journal: Phys Med Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Francesca Romana Giglioli; Lidia Strigari; Riccardo Ragona; Giuseppina R Borzì; Elisabetta Cagni; Claudia Carbonini; Stefania Clemente; Rita Consorti; Randa El Gawhary; Marco Esposito; Maria Daniela Falco; David Fedele; Christian Fiandra; Maria Cristina Frassanito; Valeria Landoni; Gianfranco Loi; Elena Lorenzini; Maria Rosa Malisan; Carmelo Marino; Enrico Menghi; Barbara Nardiello; Roberta Nigro; Caterina Oliviero; Gabriella Pastore; Mariagrazia Quattrocchi; Ruggero Ruggieri; Irene Redaelli; Giacomo Reggiori; Serenella Russo; Elena Villaggi; Marta Casati; Pietro Mancosu Journal: Phys Med Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Judit Boda-Heggemann; Jens Fleckenstein; Frank Lohr; Hansjörg Wertz; Mohammed Nachit; Manuel Blessing; Dzimitry Stsepankou; Iris Löb; Beate Küpper; Anthony Kavanagh; Vibeke N Hansen; Michael Brada; Frederik Wenz; Helen McNair Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Nicolas Peguret; Jacqueline Vock; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Pascal Fenoglietto; David Azria; Habib Zaidi; Michael Wissmeyer; Osman Ratib; Raymond Miralbell Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Z van Kesteren; J K Veldman; M J Parkes; M F Stevens; P Balasupramaniam; J G van den Aardweg; G van Tienhoven; A Bel; I W E M van Dijk Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 4.309