There is a newer version of the record available.

Published 2022 | Version v1
Journal article

End-to-end test of respiratory gating radiation therapy for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy treatments

  • 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tenon Hospital, APHP, Sorbonne University, 75020, Paris (France)
  • 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris-Saclay, 94276, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre (France)
  • 3. Department of Physics, MATER Private Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7 (Ireland)
  • 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Banja Luka, Save Mrkalja 14, 78000, Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
  • 5. Center for Radiotherapy, International Medical Centers, Affidea, 78000, Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
  • 6. Department of Radiotherapy, La Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, AP–HP, 75013, Paris (France)

Description

In this paper, a dosimetric end-to-end test of respiratory gated radiation therapy (RGRT) applied in lung cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was performed. The test was performed from treatment simulation to treatment delivery using a QUASAR phantom, for regular, slightly irregular and irregular breathing patterns in phase- and amplitude-gated modes. A mechanical and dosimetric verification was performed to evaluate all steps of the proposed treatment workflow. Dose measurements were performed using a PinPoint ion chamber and GafChromic EBT3 films. Mechanical verification confirmed good function of the chosen systems. Dosimetric verification showed good agreement between planned and measured doses, for the phase-gated versus amplitude-gated modes: 1.4 ± 0.4% versus 1.2 ± 0.2% for regular, 2.8 ± 0.3% versus 3.0 ± 0.3% for slightly irregular, and 6.2 ± 0.7% versus 7.4 ± 0.5% for irregular breathing patterns. The gamma passing rates for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria, comparing phase- versus amplitude-gated modes, were 99.0 ± 0.3% versus 99.5 ± 0.2% and 95.2 ± 0.2% versus 96.1 ± 0.2% for the regular, 97.4 ± 0.8% versus 98.0 ± 0.6% and 91.7 ± 0.5% versus 92.4 ± 0.4% for the slightly irregular, and 96.4 ± 0.5% versus 95.3 ± 0.7% and 86.4 ± 0.5% versus 84.6 ± 0.7% for the irregular breathing patterns, respectively. It is concluded that using equipment and workflow for the treatment of lung cancer by means of SBRT in RGRT mode is safe and efficient, for regular and slightly irregular breathing patterns.

Availability note (English)

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00411-022-00990-6

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
Journal Volume
61
Journal Issue
4
Journal Page Range
p. 651-660
ISSN
0301-634X
CODEN
REBPAT