Statistical Determination of the Gating Windows for Respiratory-Gated Radiotherapy Using a Visible Guiding System.

Respiratory-gated radiation therapy (RGRT) is used to minimize the radiation dose to normal tissue in lung-cancer patients. Although determining the gating window in the respiratory phase of patients is important in RGRT, it is not easy. Our aim was to determine the optimal gating window when using a visible guiding system for RGRT. Between April and October 2014, the breathing signals of 23 lung-cancer patients were recorded with a real-time position management (RPM) respiratory gating system (Varian, USA). We performed statistical analysis with breathing signals to find the optimal gating window for guided breathing in RGRT. When we compared breathing signals before and after the breathing training, 19 of the 23 patients showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The standard deviation of the respiration signals after breathing training was lowest for phases of 30%-70%. The results showed that the optimal gating window in RGRT is 40% (30%-70%) with respect to repeatability for breathing after respiration training with the visible guiding system. RGRT was performed with the RPM system to confirm the usefulness of the visible guiding system. The RPM system and our visible guiding system improve the respiratory regularity, which in turn should improve the accuracy and efficiency of RGRT

Efficacy of an Integrated Mobile Application System for Patients with Radiation Therapy: A Pilot Study

The use of IT applications for patients undergoing radiotherapy is limited. This study aimed to develop an integrated system for communication between patients and radiation oncologists using IT technology and report the first test results for the system “Assisted Radiation Oncology Mobile Application” (AROMA). This system consisted of a manager program, a server running on a PC, and a mobile application on a smartphone. A prospective survey was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of this system from October 2020 to January 2021. The survey consisted of a specific questionnaire on basic information and application use by the patients. The management program was designed such that the user (doctor) edits the treatment schedule, member (patient and doctor) information, self-management, disease information, and side effect questionnaire. The mobile application for patients consisted of the current schedule, treatment schedule calendar, side effect questionnaire, side effect management method, and disease information entered by the doctor. A total of 41 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean adverse event response time was 4.4 days. In the survey, the mobile application received positive views (8.6/10 points). Most responses related to the side effect reporting function (94%) and communication using the application (91%) were positive. Satisfaction with the application design and each menu item was high, with an average of ≥8 and ≥8.5 points in most cases, respectively. The survey showed good satisfaction with the design, operability, and reporting system. Therefore, the system can facilitate communication between patients and radiation oncologists in the future

Evaluation of the setup discrepancy between 6D ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography in spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.

The objective of this study was to analyze the difference in residual setup errors between 6D ExacTrac and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image-guided systems in spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We investigated 76 patients with spinal tumors who received SBRT using Novalis Tx at our institution between January 2013 and September 2020. A Vac-lok (EZ-FIX®, Arlico Medical Company, South Korea) fixture and an assistive device, based on the region involved, were used to immobilize patients and to increase the inter-fractional setup reproducibility. The difference in the root mean square (RMS) between the 6D ExacTrac and 3D CBCT was -0.75 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.16 mm, and -0.03°; the RMS value was 1.31 mm, 1.06 mm, 0.87 mm, and 0.64°; and the standard deviation was 0.80 mm, 0.72 mm, 0.62 mm, and 0.44° for lateral, longitudinal, vertical, and yaw directions, respectively. The difference in the average RMS between ExacTrac and CBCT was <1.03 mm in the translation direction and <0.47° in the rotational direction; the results were statistically significant in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, but not in the yaw direction. Thus, it is necessary to verify the ExacTrac image according to the CBCT image

Use of a head-tilting baseplate during volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to better protect organs at risk in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (HS-WBRT).

PURPOSE:Coplanar arcs are used with limited arc range to prevent direct beam entrance through the lens, which is challenging for satisfactory planning of hippocampal sparing in whole brain radiotherapy (HS-WBRT) with VMAT. We evaluated the dosimetric impact of applying a head-tilting technique during VMAT, which allows unrestricted use of the arc range. METHODS AND MATERIALS:Twenty patients with multiple brain metastases who had received two computed tomography (CT)-simulation sessions between January 2016 and December 2018 were included. One session was delivered in a traditional supine position; the other was delivered with a tilting acrylic supine baseplate (MedTec, USA) to elevate the patients' head by 40°. For each patient, a VMAT without (sVMAT) and with head-tilting (htVMAT) plan was generated. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and organ at risk (OAR) dose were evaluated. The Wilcoxon-signed test was used to compare the effect between two plans. RESULTS:The mean CI was 0.860±0.007 and 0.864±0.008 (p<0.05), and mean HI was 0.179±0.020 and 0.167±0.021 (p<0.05) for sVMAT and htVMAT, respectively. The mean dose to the hippocampus (9.91±0.30 Gy) was significantly lower in htVMAT than in sVMAT (10.36±0.29 Gy, P<0.05). htVMAT was associated with significantly reduced mean dose to the parotid gland, and right and left lens (4.77±1.97 Gy vs. 5.92±1.68 Gy, p<0.05; 3.29±0.44 Gy vs. 7.22±1.26 Gy, p<0.05; 3.33±0.45 Gy vs. 6.73±1.01 Gy, p<0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION:This is the first study to demonstrate that the head-tilting technique might be useful for HS-WBRT planning with VMAT. This method could remove the limitations associated with the arc range, resulting in improved dose distribution and conformity, while sparing healthy organs, including the hippocampus, lens, and parotid gland

Evaluations of the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6D ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography used with the imaging guidance system Novalis-Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6 degree-of-freedom (6D) ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) used with the imaging guidance system Novalis Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. We included 107 consecutive patients for whom white stereotactic head frame masks (R408; Clarity Medical Products, Newark, OH) were used to fix the head during intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery, between August 2012 and July 2016. The patients were immobilized in the same state for both the verification image using 6D ExacTrac and online 3D CBCT. In addition, after radiation treatment, registration between the computed tomography simulation images and the CBCT images was performed with offline 6D fusion in an offline review. The root-mean-square of the difference in the translational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and CBCT was <1.01 mm for online matching and <1.10 mm for offline matching. Furthermore, the root-mean-square of the difference in the rotational dimensions between the ExacTrac system and the CBCT were <0.82° for online matching and <0.95° for offline matching. It was concluded that while the discrepancies in residual setup errors between the ExacTrac 6D X-ray and the CBCT were minor, they should not be ignored

Prospective assessment of inter- or intra-fractional variation according to body weight or volume change in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

This study aimed to prospectively investigate the association between body weight (ΔBW) or body volume variations (ΔBV) and inter- or intra-fractional variations (Δ(inter) or Δ(intra)) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiotherapy (RT). This study enrolled patients with HNC from December 2015 to December 2017. All patients underwent curative intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) either as definitive or adjuvant treatment. Six-dimensional inter- and intra-fractional variations (Δ(inter) and Δ(intra)) were obtained with ExacTrac (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany) system. BV was measured 7.5 cm cranio-caudally from the centre using cone beam computed tomography. The BW, BV, and Δ(inter) were calculated based on the value obtained on the first treatment day after each simulation. Both Δ(inter) and Δ(intra) were considered in calculating the optimal margins for planning target volume (PTV), which was calculated using van Herk's formula. In total, 678 fractions with 39 simulations in 22 patients were analysed. The average ΔBW and ΔBV was -0.43±1.90 kg (range, -7.3 to 5.0) and -24.34±69.0 cc (range, -247.15 to 214.88), respectively. In correlation analysis, Δ(intra) was more associated with ΔBW or ΔBV than Δ(inter). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed Δ(intra) could differentiate ΔBW from ΔBV, while Δ(inter) could not. The optimal margins for PTV considering both Δ(inter) and Δ(intra) were 3.70 mm, 4.52 mm, and 5.12 mm for the right-left, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. In conclusion, the PTV margin of 6 mm for anterior-posterior direction and 5 mm for the other directions were needed. ΔBW or ΔBV correlated with Δ(intra) rather than Δ(inter). Therefore, ΔBW or ΔBV should be assessed for accurate IMRT in patients with HNC

Characteristics of the Patients Included in the Study.

<p>Patient 21 Was Treated in the RUL and LUL.</p

Results of the Paired <i>t</i>-test for Differences between Free Respiration and Guided Respiration with the 3-s Cycle Using the Visual Guidance System (<i>N</i> = 40 with Respiration Signals).

<p>Results of the Paired <i>t</i>-test for Differences between Free Respiration and Guided Respiration with the 3-s Cycle Using the Visual Guidance System (<i>N</i> = 40 with Respiration Signals).</p