A Gnerucci1, M Esposito2, A Ghirelli2, S Pini2, L Paoletti3, R Barca3, S Fondelli3, P Alpi3, B Grilli3, F Rossi4, S Scoccianti3, S Russo2. 1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. alessio.gnerucci@unifi.it. 2. Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Florence, Italy. 3. Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Florence, Italy. 4. Radiotherapy Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Grosseto, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare two left breast cancer patient cohorts (tangential vs. locoregional deep-inspiration breath-hold - DIBH treatment) with different predefined beam gating thresholds and to evaluate their impact on motion management and DIBH stability. METHODS: An SGRT-based clinical workflow was adopted for the DIBH treatment. Intrafractional monitoring was performed by tracking both the respiratory signal and the real-time displacement between the isocenter on the daily reference surface and on the live surface ("SGRT shift"). Beam gating tolerances were 5 mm/4 mm for the SGRT shifts and 5 mm/3 mm for the gating window amplitude for breast tangential and breast + lymph nodes locoregional treatments, respectively. A total of 24 patients, 12 treated with a tangential technique and 12 with a locoregional technique, were evaluated for a total number of 684 fractions. Statistical distributions of SGRT shift and respiratory signal for each treatment fraction, for each patient treatment, and for the two population samples were generated. RESULTS: Lateral cumulative distributions of SGRT shifts for both locoregional and tangential samples were consistent with a null shift, whereas longitudinal and vertical ones were slightly negative (mean values < 1 mm). The distribution of the percentage of beam on time with SGRT shift > 3 mm, > 4 mm, or > 5 mm was extended toward higher values for the tangential sample than for the locoregional sample. The variability in the DIBH respiration signal was significantly greater for the tangential sample. CONCLUSION: Different beam gating thresholds for surface-guided DIBH treatment of left breast cancer can impact motion management and DIBH stability by reducing the frequency of the maximum SGRT shift and increasing respiration signal stability when tighter thresholds are adopted.
PURPOSE: To compare two left breast cancer patient cohorts (tangential vs. locoregional deep-inspiration breath-hold - DIBH treatment) with different predefined beam gating thresholds and to evaluate their impact on motion management and DIBH stability. METHODS: An SGRT-based clinical workflow was adopted for the DIBH treatment. Intrafractional monitoring was performed by tracking both the respiratory signal and the real-time displacement between the isocenter on the daily reference surface and on the live surface ("SGRT shift"). Beam gating tolerances were 5 mm/4 mm for the SGRT shifts and 5 mm/3 mm for the gating window amplitude for breast tangential and breast + lymph nodes locoregional treatments, respectively. A total of 24 patients, 12 treated with a tangential technique and 12 with a locoregional technique, were evaluated for a total number of 684 fractions. Statistical distributions of SGRT shift and respiratory signal for each treatment fraction, for each patient treatment, and for the two population samples were generated. RESULTS: Lateral cumulative distributions of SGRT shifts for both locoregional and tangential samples were consistent with a null shift, whereas longitudinal and vertical ones were slightly negative (mean values < 1 mm). The distribution of the percentage of beam on time with SGRT shift > 3 mm, > 4 mm, or > 5 mm was extended toward higher values for the tangential sample than for the locoregional sample. The variability in the DIBH respiration signal was significantly greater for the tangential sample. CONCLUSION: Different beam gating thresholds for surface-guided DIBH treatment of left breast cancer can impact motion management and DIBH stability by reducing the frequency of the maximum SGRT shift and increasing respiration signal stability when tighter thresholds are adopted.
Authors: Stine S Korreman; Anders N Pedersen; Lasse Rye Aarup; Trine J Nøttrup; Lena Specht; Håkan Nyström Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas Mulliez; Liv Veldeman; Bruno Speleers; Khalil Mahjoubi; Vincent Remouchamps; Annick Van Greveling; Monique Gilsoul; Dieter Berwouts; Yolande Lievens; Rudy Van den Broecke; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Silvia C Formenti; Daniela Gidea-Addeo; Judith D Goldberg; Daniel F Roses; Amber Guth; Barry S Rosenstein; Keith J DeWyngaert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah C Darby; Marianne Ewertz; Paul McGale; Anna M Bennet; Ulla Blom-Goldman; Dorthe Brønnum; Candace Correa; David Cutter; Giovanna Gagliardi; Bruna Gigante; Maj-Britt Jensen; Andrew Nisbet; Richard Peto; Kazem Rahimi; Carolyn Taylor; Per Hall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vincent M Remouchamps; Nicola Letts; Frank A Vicini; Michael B Sharpe; Larry L Kestin; Peter Y Chen; Alvaro A Martinez; John W Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038