Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 23, Number 2, 2018

Interfractional diaphragm changes during breath-holding in stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver cancer

Daisuke Kawahara, Shuichi Ozawa, Takeo Nakashima, Shintaro Tsuda, ... Yasushi Nagata

Summary:

Aim and background

IGRT based on bone matching may produce a large target positioning error in terms of the reproducibility of expiration breath-holding on SBRT for liver cancer. We evaluated the intrafractional and interfractional errors using the diaphragm position at the end of expiration by utilising Abches and analysed the factor of the interfractional error.

Materials and methods

Intrafractional and interfractional errors were measured using a couple of frontal kV images, planning computed tomography (pCT) and daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Moreover, max–min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT were calculated.

Results

The mean ± SD (standard deviation) of the intra-fraction diaphragm position variation in the frontal kV images was 1.0 ± 0.7 mm in the C-C direction. The inter-fractional diaphragm changes were 0.4 ± 4.6 mm in the C-C direction, 1.4 ± 2.2 mm in the A-P direction, and −0.6 ± 1.8 mm in the L-R direction. There were no significant differences between the maximum value of the max–min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT.

Conclusions

Residual intrafractional variability of diaphragm position is minimal, but large interfractional diaphragm changes were observed. There was a small effect in the patient condition difference between pCT and CBCT. The impact of the difference in daily breath-holds on the interfractional diaphragm position was large or the difference in daily breath-holding heavily influenced the interfractional diaphragm change.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2018; 23(2) : 84-90


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2