Elisabeth Steiner1, Chun-Chien Shieh2, Vincent Caillet3, Jeremy Booth4, Ricky O'Brien2, Adam Briggs5, Nicholas Hardcastle6, Dasantha Jayamanne5, Kathryn Szymura5, Thomas Eade7, Paul Keall2. 1. ACRF Image X Institute, The University of Sydney Central Clinical School, Australia. Electronic address: elisabeth.steiner@sydney.edu.au. 2. ACRF Image X Institute, The University of Sydney Central Clinical School, Australia. 3. ACRF Image X Institute, The University of Sydney Central Clinical School, Australia; Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia. 5. Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 6. Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute of Medical Physics, The University of Sydney, Australia. 7. Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; The University of Sydney Northern Clinical School, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that 4DCT and 4DCBCT-measured target motion ranges predict target motion ranges during lung cancer SABR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten lung SABR patients were implanted with Calypso beacons. 4DCBCT was reconstructed for 29 fractions (1-4fx/patient) from a 1 min CBCT scan. The beacon centroid motion segmented for all 4DCT and 4DCBCT bins was compared with the real-time imaging and treatment beacon centroid ("target") motion range (4SDs) for each fraction. We tested the hypotheses that (1) 4DCT and 4CBCT predict treatment motion range and (2) there is no difference between 4DCT and 4DCBCT for predicting treatment motion range. Phase-wise root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) between imaging and treatment motion and reconstructed motion (4DCT, 4DCBCT) were calculated. Relationships between motion ranges in 4DCT and 4DCBCT and imaging and treatment motion ranges were investigated for the superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Baseline drifts and amplitude variability were investigated as potential factors leading to motion misrepresentation. RESULTS: SI 4DCT, 4DCBCT, imaging and treatment motion ranges were 6.3 ± 3.6 mm, 7.1 ± 4.5 mm, 11.1 ± 7.5 mm and 10.9 ± 6.9 mm, respectively. Similar 4DCT and 4DCBCT under-predictions were observed in the LR and AP directions. Hypothesis (1) was rejected (p < 0.0001). Treatment target motion range was under-predicted in 4DCT by factors of 1.7, 1.9 and 1.7 and in 4DCBCT by factors of 1.5, 1.6 and 1.6 in the SI, LR, and AP directions, respectively. RMSEs were generally lower for end-exhale than inhale. 4DCBCT showed higher correlations with the imaging and treatment target motion than 4DCT and testing hypothesis (2) a statistically significant difference between 4DCT and 4DCBCT was shown in the SI direction (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: For lung SABR patients both 4DCT and 4DCBCT significantly under-predict treatment target motion ranges.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that 4DCT and 4DCBCT-measured target motion ranges predict target motion ranges during lung cancerSABR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten lung SABRpatients were implanted with Calypso beacons. 4DCBCT was reconstructed for 29 fractions (1-4fx/patient) from a 1 min CBCT scan. The beacon centroid motion segmented for all 4DCT and 4DCBCT bins was compared with the real-time imaging and treatment beacon centroid ("target") motion range (4SDs) for each fraction. We tested the hypotheses that (1) 4DCT and 4CBCT predict treatment motion range and (2) there is no difference between 4DCT and 4DCBCT for predicting treatment motion range. Phase-wise root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) between imaging and treatment motion and reconstructed motion (4DCT, 4DCBCT) were calculated. Relationships between motion ranges in 4DCT and 4DCBCT and imaging and treatment motion ranges were investigated for the superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Baseline drifts and amplitude variability were investigated as potential factors leading to motion misrepresentation. RESULTS: SI 4DCT, 4DCBCT, imaging and treatment motion ranges were 6.3 ± 3.6 mm, 7.1 ± 4.5 mm, 11.1 ± 7.5 mm and 10.9 ± 6.9 mm, respectively. Similar 4DCT and 4DCBCT under-predictions were observed in the LR and AP directions. Hypothesis (1) was rejected (p < 0.0001). Treatment target motion range was under-predicted in 4DCT by factors of 1.7, 1.9 and 1.7 and in 4DCBCT by factors of 1.5, 1.6 and 1.6 in the SI, LR, and AP directions, respectively. RMSEs were generally lower for end-exhale than inhale. 4DCBCT showed higher correlations with the imaging and treatment target motion than 4DCT and testing hypothesis (2) a statistically significant difference between 4DCT and 4DCBCT was shown in the SI direction (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: For lung SABRpatients both 4DCT and 4DCBCT significantly under-predict treatment target motion ranges.
Authors: Tobias Finazzi; John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Miguel A Palacios; Femke O B Spoelstra; Berend J Slotman; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Suresh Senan Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-20
Authors: Jonas Willmann; Baho Sidiqi; Chunyu Wang; Christian Czmielewski; Henry J Li; Rosalind Dick-Godfrey; Mohit Chawla; Robert P Lee; Emily Gelb; Abraham J Wu; Michael Lovelock; Zhigang Zhang; Ellen D Yorke; Andreas Rimner Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-29
Authors: Christopher Kurz; Giulia Buizza; Guillaume Landry; Florian Kamp; Moritz Rabe; Chiara Paganelli; Guido Baroni; Michael Reiner; Paul J Keall; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Marco Riboldi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: M Ranjbar; P Sabouri; S Mossahebi; A Sawant; P Mohindra; G Lasio; L D Timmie Topoleski Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 3.609