Reproducibility of chestwall and heart position using surface‐guided versus RPM‐guided DIBH radiotherapy for left breast cancer. Issue 1 (22nd August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lu, Wei; Li, Guang; Hong, Linda; Yorke, Ellen; Tang, Xiaoli; Mechalakos, James G.; Zhang, Pengpeng; Cerviño, Laura I.; Powell, Simon; Berry, Sean L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 24:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-08-22
• Subjects: breast cancer -- comparison -- deep inspiration breath hold -- real‐time position management -- surface imaging; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13755
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: This study compared the reproducibility of chestwall and heart position using surface‐guided versus RPM (real‐time position management)‐guided deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for left sided breast cancer. Forty DIBH patients under either surface‐guided radiotherapy (SGRT) or RPM guidance were studied. For patients treated with tangential fields, reproducibility was measured as the displacements in central lung distance (CLD) and heart shadow to field edge distance (HFD) between pretreatment MV (megavoltage) images and planning DRRs (digitally reconstructed radiographs). For patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), sternum to isocenter (ISO) distance (StID), spine to rib edge distance (SpRD), and heart shadow to central axis (CAX) distance (HCD) between pretreatment kV images and planning DRRs were measured. These displacements were compared between SGRT and RPM‐guided DIBH. In tangential patients, the mean absolute displacements of SGRT versus RPM guidance were 0.19 versus 0.23 cm in CLD, and 0.33 versus 0.62 cm in HFD. With respect to planning DRR, heart appeared closer to the field edge by 0.04 cm with surface imaging versus 0.62 cm with RPM. In VMAT patients, the displacements of surface imaging versus RPM guidance were 0.21 versus 0.15 cm in StID, 0.24 versus 0.19 cm in SpRD, and 0.72 versus 0.41 cm in HCD. Heart appeared 0.41 cm further away from CAX with surface imaging, whereas 0.10 cm closer to field CAX with RPM. None of the differences between surface imaging and RPM guidance was statistically significant. In conclusion, the displacements of chestwall were small and were comparable with SGRT‐ or RPM‐guided DIBH. The position deviations of heart were larger than those of chestwall with SGRT or RPM. Although none of the differences between SGRT and RPM guidance were statistically significant, there was a trend that the position deviations of heart were smaller and more favorable with SGRT than with RPM guidance in tangential patients.