The effectiveness of 4DCT in children and adults: A pooled analysis.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography
/ methods
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Respiratory-Gated Imaging Techniques
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
4DCT
pediatric RT
respiratory-induced motion
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
01
05
2018
revised:
21
09
2018
accepted:
01
10
2018
pubmed:
11
11
2018
medline:
18
5
2019
entrez:
11
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) is extensively used in adults, reluctance remains to use 4DCT in children. Day-to-day (interfractional) variability and irregular respiration (intrafractional variability) have shown to be limiting factors of 4DCT effectiveness in adults. In order to evaluate 4DCT applicability in children, the purpose of this study is to quantify inter- and intrafractional variability of respiratory motion in children and adults. The pooled analysis enables a solid comparison to reveal if 4DCT application for planning purposes in children could be valid. We retrospectively included 90 patients (45 children and 45 adults), for whom the diaphragm was visible on abdominal/thoracic free-breathing cone beam CTs (480 pediatric, 524 adult CBCTs). For each CBCT, the cranial-caudal position of end-exhale and end-inhale positions of the right diaphragm dome were manually selected in the projection images. The difference in position between both phases defines the amplitude. Cycle time equaled inspiratory plus expiratory time. We analyzed the variability of the inter- and intrafractional respiratory-induced diaphragm motion. Ranges of respiratory motion characteristics were large in both children and adults (amplitude: 4-17 vs 5-24 mm, cycle time 2.1-3.9 vs 2.7-6.5 s). The mean amplitude was slightly smaller in children than in adults (10.7 vs 12.3 mm; P = 0.06). Interfractional amplitude variability was statistically significantly smaller in children than in adults (1.4 vs 2.2 mm; P = 0.00). Mean cycle time was statistically significantly shorter in children (2.9 vs 3.6 s; P = 0.00). Additionally, intrafractional cycle time variability was statistically significantly smaller in children (0.5 vs 0.7 s; P = 0.00). Overall variability is smaller in children than in adults, indicating that respiratory motion is more regular in children than in adults. This implies that a single pretreatment 4DCT could be a good representation of daily respiratory motion in children and will be at least equally beneficial for planning purposes as it is in adults.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) is extensively used in adults, reluctance remains to use 4DCT in children. Day-to-day (interfractional) variability and irregular respiration (intrafractional variability) have shown to be limiting factors of 4DCT effectiveness in adults. In order to evaluate 4DCT applicability in children, the purpose of this study is to quantify inter- and intrafractional variability of respiratory motion in children and adults. The pooled analysis enables a solid comparison to reveal if 4DCT application for planning purposes in children could be valid.
METHODS/MATERIALS
METHODS
We retrospectively included 90 patients (45 children and 45 adults), for whom the diaphragm was visible on abdominal/thoracic free-breathing cone beam CTs (480 pediatric, 524 adult CBCTs). For each CBCT, the cranial-caudal position of end-exhale and end-inhale positions of the right diaphragm dome were manually selected in the projection images. The difference in position between both phases defines the amplitude. Cycle time equaled inspiratory plus expiratory time. We analyzed the variability of the inter- and intrafractional respiratory-induced diaphragm motion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ranges of respiratory motion characteristics were large in both children and adults (amplitude: 4-17 vs 5-24 mm, cycle time 2.1-3.9 vs 2.7-6.5 s). The mean amplitude was slightly smaller in children than in adults (10.7 vs 12.3 mm; P = 0.06). Interfractional amplitude variability was statistically significantly smaller in children than in adults (1.4 vs 2.2 mm; P = 0.00). Mean cycle time was statistically significantly shorter in children (2.9 vs 3.6 s; P = 0.00). Additionally, intrafractional cycle time variability was statistically significantly smaller in children (0.5 vs 0.7 s; P = 0.00).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall variability is smaller in children than in adults, indicating that respiratory motion is more regular in children than in adults. This implies that a single pretreatment 4DCT could be a good representation of daily respiratory motion in children and will be at least equally beneficial for planning purposes as it is in adults.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30414252
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12488
pmc: PMC6333119
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
276-283Subventions
Organisme : Dutch Cancer Society
ID : 2016-10113
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Acta Oncol. 1999;38(6):719-34
pubmed: 10522762
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Mar;62(3):299-307
pubmed: 12175561
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004 Jan;14(1):52-64
pubmed: 14752733
Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):874-89
pubmed: 15895570
Med Phys. 2006 Oct;33(10):3874-900
pubmed: 17089851
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jun 1;68(2):531-40
pubmed: 17398035
JAMA. 2007 Jun 27;297(24):2705-15
pubmed: 17595271
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1087-98
pubmed: 18263960
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 15;72(4):1250-8
pubmed: 18823717
Med Dosim. 2009 Spring;34(1):87-90
pubmed: 19181261
J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2009 Mar-Apr;26(2):81-5
pubmed: 19202117
Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2855-61
pubmed: 20632597
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 1;82(3):e399-407
pubmed: 22284036
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Mar 15;85(4):999-1005
pubmed: 23102840
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2013 Apr;23(2):88-96
pubmed: 23473685
Acta Oncol. 2014 Sep;53(9):1257-64
pubmed: 24758251
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jun;59(3):346-52
pubmed: 25728211
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jun 1;95(2):818-26
pubmed: 27020102
Radiother Oncol. 2016 May;119(2):357-60
pubmed: 27106553
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Jan;47(1):113-115
pubmed: 27743004
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Jan;47(1):119-121
pubmed: 27743005
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Jan;47(1):116-117
pubmed: 27743006
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Jan;47(1):118
pubmed: 27743007
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Jan;47(1):122-123
pubmed: 27743008
Acta Oncol. 2017 Aug;56(8):1065-1071
pubmed: 28281356
Radiother Oncol. 2017 May;123(2):263-269
pubmed: 28363486
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Jul;124(1):147-154
pubmed: 28579281
Oncol Nurs Forum. 1994 Jul;21(6):987-94
pubmed: 7971421
Phys Med Biol. 1996 Jan;41(1):83-91
pubmed: 8685260