Positional repeatability and variation in internal and external markers during volumetric-modulated arc therapy under end-exhalation breath-hold conditions for pancreatic cancer patients

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the positional repeatability of internal and external markers among multiple breath-hold (BH) sessions and evaluate the positional variation of these markers within BH sessions for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for pancreatic cancer patients. A total of 13 consecutive pancreatic cancer patients with an internal marker were enrolled. Single full-arc coplanar VMAT was delivered under end-exhalation BH conditions while monitoring the internal marker with kilovoltage (kV) X-ray fluoroscopy. Positional repeatability of the internal and external markers was determined by the difference between the reference and zero position in all BH sessions, and positional variation was defined by the displacement from the reference position in each BH session during megavolt beam delivery. The overall positional repeatability was 0.6 ± 1.5 mm in the X-axis for the centroid of the internal marker (CoIM), −0.1 ± 2.2 mm in the Y-axis for the CoIM, and 0.8 ± 2.2 mm for the external marker. The frequency of an internal marker position appearing > 2 mm from the reference position in the Y-axis, despite the external marker position being ≤2 mm from the reference position, ranged from 0.0 to 39.9% for each patient. Meanwhile, the proportion of sessions with positional variation ≤2 mm was 93.2 and 98.7% for the CoIM and external marker, respectively. External marker motion can be used as a surrogate for pancreatic tumor motion during BH-VMAT delivery; however, margins of ~5 mm were required to ensure positional repeatability.

Organ‐contour‐driven auto‐matching algorithm in image‐guided radiotherapy

“…With respect to rotation, the standard deviation exceeded 3° for 6% of the entire dataset, regardless of the axis. This study also observed inter‐observer variability, consistent with findings from previous studies 3,8,9,17–19 . These findings emphasize the need for auto‐matching techniques to minimize inter‐observer variability and achieve consistent soft‐tissue matching.…”

“…However, soft‐tissue matching faces several difficulties. Previous studies have consistently identified inter‐ and intra‐observer variability as great issues in soft‐tissue matching 3,8,9 . Hirose et al emphasized the importance of considering inter‐observer variability when determining the clinical target volume for PTV margins 3 .…”

“…Hirose et al emphasized the importance of considering inter‐observer variability when determining the clinical target volume for PTV margins 3 . Sasaki et al demonstrated substantial inter‐observer variability and increased time requirements for soft‐tissue matching in pancreatic cancer, particularly among trainees with limited experience in IGRT 8 . Furthermore, Zhang et al conducted an analysis of the impact of inter‐observer variability, underscoring its greater influence on organs at risk (OARs) than on the target in prostate cancer 9 …”

Impact of planning organ at risk volume margins and matching method on late gastrointestinal toxicity in moderately hypofractionated IMRT for locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

“…1 ). Furthermore, VISICOIL was monitored to observe if it was within 2 mm during beam delivery, and when it exceeded that range, CBCT was performed again [ 13 ]. For the patients in Protocol B, backup plans were generated using the same procedure as Protocol A in case VISICOIL could not be recognized during irradiation.…”

Dosimetric impact of simulated changes in large bowel content during proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

“…There are many reports on internal errors in external radiation therapy for LAPC, 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 and many problems need to be solved. It has been pointed out that changes in GI tract density are more affected by particle therapy.…”