Scholarlink

<p>Respiratory motion management was crucial importance in radiotherapy. Our study aimed to explore the dosimetric and radiobiological benefits of various respiratory motion management strategies in liver tumor patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Respiratory motion images of 23 liver tumor patients were obtained by 4DCT scan under abdominal compression (AC) and free-breathing (FB). Group A included all 23 patients, while group B focused on 11 patients with tumors &lt; 5&#xa0;cm in diameter. Dosimetric and radiobiological parameters were recorded and compared across three treatment plans for each patient: Plan<sub>FB</sub>, Plan<sub>AC</sub>, and Plan<sub>GAT(Respiratory gating)</sub>. For dosimetric parameters, compared to Plan<sub>AC</sub>, Plan<sub>GAT</sub> further significantly reduced liver D<sub>mean</sub>, V<sub>d&lt;21.5&#xa0;Gy</sub>, V<sub>10Gy</sub>; right kidney D<sub>mean</sub>; duodenum D<sub>mean</sub>, D<sub>0.5cc</sub>, <sub>1cc</sub>, <sub>5cc</sub>, <sub>10cc</sub>; intestine D<sub>mean</sub>, D<sub>0.5cc</sub>, <sub>5cc</sub>, <sub>10cc</sub>; stomach D<sub>mean</sub> and spinal cord D<sub>mean</sub>, V<sub>5Gy</sub> in group A; however, in Group B, Plan<sub>GAT</sub> only showed significantly reductions in liver D<sub>mean</sub> and duodenum D<sub>mean</sub>, D<sub>5cc</sub>, <sub>10cc</sub>. In terms of radiobiology, compared with Plan<sub>FB</sub>, Plan<sub>AC</sub> significantly reduced liver NTCP (<i>p</i> = 0.033) in Group B, whereas no difference was observed in Group A (<i>p</i> = 0.231). Additionally, compared to Plan<sub>AC</sub>, Plan<sub>GAT</sub> further reduced liver NTCP (<i>p</i> = 0.001), liver EUD (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and right kidney EUD (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) in Group A; however, in Group B, Plan<sub>GAT</sub> did not significantly decrease liver NTCP (<i>p</i> = 0.136), indicating that AC offers comparable benefits to GAT. The Pearson’s correlations between the reductions in dosimetric and radiobiological parameters and tumor motion or target volume were stronger in Group B than in Group A under AC. So, GAT provides the greatest dosimetric and radiobiological benefits for liver tumors treated with SBRT, while AC offers comparable benefits for liver tumors with &lt; 5&#xa0;cm in diameter. Thus, given its technical simplicity, AC is recommended for liver tumors &lt; 5&#xa0;cm in diameter undergoing SBRT.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Dosimetric and radiobiological benefits of patient-specific respiratory motion management for liver tumor stereotactic body radiotherapy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月14日

查看全文
  • Zhenhang Xu,
  • Jiaxiang Gao,
  • Te Xu,
  • Haihua Lei,
  • Qianhong Chen,
  • Jiangshan Li,
  • Miaoyun Huang,
  • Xiaodong Wu,
  • Yuangui Chen

摘要

Respiratory motion management was crucial importance in radiotherapy. Our study aimed to explore the dosimetric and radiobiological benefits of various respiratory motion management strategies in liver tumor patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Respiratory motion images of 23 liver tumor patients were obtained by 4DCT scan under abdominal compression (AC) and free-breathing (FB). Group A included all 23 patients, while group B focused on 11 patients with tumors < 5 cm in diameter. Dosimetric and radiobiological parameters were recorded and compared across three treatment plans for each patient: PlanFB, PlanAC, and PlanGAT(Respiratory gating). For dosimetric parameters, compared to PlanAC, PlanGAT further significantly reduced liver Dmean, Vd<21.5 Gy, V10Gy; right kidney Dmean; duodenum Dmean, D0.5cc, 1cc, 5cc, 10cc; intestine Dmean, D0.5cc, 5cc, 10cc; stomach Dmean and spinal cord Dmean, V5Gy in group A; however, in Group B, PlanGAT only showed significantly reductions in liver Dmean and duodenum Dmean, D5cc, 10cc. In terms of radiobiology, compared with PlanFB, PlanAC significantly reduced liver NTCP (p = 0.033) in Group B, whereas no difference was observed in Group A (p = 0.231). Additionally, compared to PlanAC, PlanGAT further reduced liver NTCP (p = 0.001), liver EUD (p < 0.001) and right kidney EUD (p < 0.001) in Group A; however, in Group B, PlanGAT did not significantly decrease liver NTCP (p = 0.136), indicating that AC offers comparable benefits to GAT. The Pearson’s correlations between the reductions in dosimetric and radiobiological parameters and tumor motion or target volume were stronger in Group B than in Group A under AC. So, GAT provides the greatest dosimetric and radiobiological benefits for liver tumors treated with SBRT, while AC offers comparable benefits for liver tumors with < 5 cm in diameter. Thus, given its technical simplicity, AC is recommended for liver tumors < 5 cm in diameter undergoing SBRT.