Open AccessAccuracy and efficiency of respiratory gating comparable to deep inspiration breath hold for pancreatic cancer treatment
Author(s) -
Zeng Chuan,
Li Xiang,
Lu Wei,
Reyngold Marsha,
Gewanter Richard M.,
Cuaron John J.,
Yorke Ellen,
Li Tianfang
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13137
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , medicine , gating , fiducial marker , breathing , radiation therapy , expiration , radiation treatment planning , radiology , respiratory system , anatomy , physiology
Abstract Purpose Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and respiratory gating (RG) are widely used to reduce movement of target and healthy organs caused by breathing during irradiation. We hypothesized that accuracy and efficiency comparable to DIBH can be achieved with RG for pancreas treatment. Methods and Materials Twenty consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer treated with DIBH (eight) or RG (twelve) volumetric modulated arc therapy during 2017–2019 were included in this study, with radiopaque markers implanted near or in the targets. Seventeen patients received 25 fractions, while the other three received 15 fractions. Only patients who could not tolerate DIBH received RG treatment. While both techniques relied on respiratory signals from external markers, internal target motions were monitored with kV X‐ray imaging during treatment. A 3‐mm external gating window was used for DIBH treatment; RG treatment was centered on end‐expiration with a duty cycle of 40%, corresponding to an external gating window of 2–3 mm. During dose delivery, kV images were automatically taken every 20 ◦ or 40 ◦ gantry rotation, from which internal markers were identified. The marker displacement from their initial positions and the residual motion amplitudes were calculated. For the analysis of treatment efficiency, the treatment time of every session was calculated from the motion management waveform files recorded at the treatment console. Results Within one fraction, the displacement was 0–5 mm for DIBH and 0–6 mm for RG. The average magnitude of displacement for each patient during the entire course of treatment ranged 0–3 mm for both techniques. No statistically significant difference in displacement or residual motion was observed between the two techniques. The average treatment time was 15 min for DIBH and 17 min for RG, with no statistical significance. Conclusions The accuracy and efficiency were comparable between RG and DIBH treatment for pancreas irradiation. RG is a feasible alternative strategy to DIBH.