Cargando…

Intrafraction target shift comparison using two breath-hold systems in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) respiratory management is used to reduce target motion due to respiration. This study aimed (1) to estimate intrafraction shifts through a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) acquired during the first treatment arc when deep insp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prado, Alejandro, Zucca, Daniel, De la Casa, Miguel Ángel, Martí, Jaime, Alonso, Leyre, de Acilu, Paz García, García, Juan, Hernando, Ovidio, Fernández-Letón, Pedro, Rubio, Carmen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9065403/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35514526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2022.04.004
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) respiratory management is used to reduce target motion due to respiration. This study aimed (1) to estimate intrafraction shifts through a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) acquired during the first treatment arc when deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) was performed using spirometry-based (SB) or surface-guidance (SG) systems and (2) to analyze the obtained results depending on lesion localization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 157 patients with 243 lesions was analyzed. A total of 860 and 410 fractions were treated using SB and SG. Averaged intrafraction shifts were estimated by the offsets obtained when registering a CBCT acquired during the first treatment arc with the planning CT. Offsets were recorded in superior-inferior (SI), left–right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP). Significance tests were applied to account for differences in average offsets and variances between DIBH systems. Systematic and random errors were computed. RESULTS: Average offset moduli were 2.4 ± 2.2 mm and 3.5 ± 2.6 mm for SB and SG treatments (p < 0.001). When comparing SB and SG offset distributions in each direction no differences were found in average values (p > 0.3). However, variances were statistically smaller for SB than for SG (p < 0.001). The number of vector moduli offsets greater than 5 mm was 2.1 times higher for SG. Compared to other locations, lower lobe lesions moduli were at least 2.3 times higher. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were accuracy-equivalent but not precision-equivalent systems. Furthermore, the SB system was more precise than the SG one. Despite DIBH, patients with lower lobe lesions had larger offsets than superior lobe ones, mainly in SI.