% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Qubala:284633,
author = {A. Qubala and J. Shafee and V. Batista and J. Liermann and
M. Winter and D. Piro and O. Jäkel$^*$},
title = {{C}omparative evaluation of a surface-based respiratory
monitoring system against a pressure sensor for 4{DCT} image
reconstruction in phantoms.},
journal = {Journal of applied clinical medical physics},
volume = {25},
number = {2},
issn = {1526-9914},
address = {Reston, Va.},
publisher = {ACMP},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-02040},
pages = {e14174},
year = {2024},
note = {#LA:E040# / 2024 Feb;25(2):e14174},
abstract = {Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT), which relies
on breathing-induced motion, requires realistic surrogate
information of breathing variations to reconstruct the tumor
trajectory and motion variability of normal tissues
accurately. Therefore, the SimRT surface-guided respiratory
monitoring system has been installed on a Siemens CT
scanner. This work evaluated the temporal and spatial
accuracy of SimRT versus our commonly used pressure sensor,
AZ-733 V. A dynamic thorax phantom was used to reproduce
regular and irregular breathing patterns acquired by SimRT
and Anzai. Various parameters of the recorded breathing
patterns, including mean absolute deviations (MAD), Pearson
correlations (PC), and tagging precision, were investigated
and compared to ground-truth. Furthermore, 4DCT
reconstructions were analyzed to assess the volume
discrepancy, shape deformation and tumor trajectory.
Compared to the ground-truth, SimRT more precisely
reproduced the breathing patterns with a MAD range of 0.37
± 0.27 and 0.92 ± 1.02 mm versus Anzai with 1.75 ± 1.54
and 5.85 ± 3.61 mm for regular and irregular breathing
patterns, respectively. Additionally, SimRT provided a more
robust PC of 0.994 ± 0.009 and 0.936 ± 0.062 for all
investigated breathing patterns. Further, the peak and
valley recognition were found to be more accurate and stable
using SimRT. The comparison of tumor trajectories revealed
discrepancies up to 7.2 and 2.3 mm for Anzai and SimRT,
respectively. Moreover, volume discrepancies up to 1.71 ±
$1.62\%$ and 1.24 ± $2.02\%$ were found for both Anzai and
SimRT, respectively. SimRT was validated across various
breathing patterns and showed a more precise and stable
breathing tracking, (i) independent of the amplitude and
period, (ii) and without placing any physical devices on the
patient's body. These findings resulted in a more accurate
temporal and spatial accuracy, thus leading to a more
realistic 4DCT reconstruction and breathing-adapted
treatment planning.},
keywords = {4DCT reconstruction (Other) / Surface-guided radiotherapy
(Other) / breathing detection (Other) / breathing surrogate
(Other) / commissioning (Other) / mobile tumors (Other) /
motion artifacts (Other) / respiratory monitoring system
(Other)},
cin = {E040},
ddc = {530},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37815197},
doi = {10.1002/acm2.14174},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/284633},
}