001     286386
005     20240229155126.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1002/acm2.14249
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:38128056
|2 pmid
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2023-02789
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 530
100 1 _ |a Qubala, Abdallah
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Characteristics of breathing-adapted gating using surface guidance for use in particle therapy: A phantom-based end-to-end test from CT simulation to dose delivery.
260 _ _ |a Reston, Va.
|c 2024
|b ACMP
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1705659989_22127
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
500 _ _ |a #LA:E040# / 2024 Jan;25(1):e14249
520 _ _ |a To account for intra-fractional tumor motion during dose delivery in radiotherapy, various treatment strategies are clinically implemented such as breathing-adapted gating and irradiating the tumor during specific breathing phases. In this work, we present a comprehensive phantom-based end-to-end test of breathing-adapted gating utilizing surface guidance for use in particle therapy. A commercial dynamic thorax phantom was used to reproduce regular and irregular breathing patterns recorded by the GateRT respiratory monitoring system. The amplitudes and periods of recorded breathing patterns were analysed and compared to planned patterns (ground-truth). In addition, the mean absolute deviations (MAD) and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) between the measurements and ground-truth were assessed. Measurements of gated and non-gated irradiations were also analysed with respect to dosimetry and geometry, and compared to treatment planning system (TPS). Further, the latency time of beam on/off was evaluated. Compared to the ground-truth, measurements performed with GateRT showed amplitude differences between 0.03 ± 0.02 mm and 0.26 ± 0.03 mm for regular and irregular breathing patterns, whilst periods of both breathing patterns ranged with a standard deviation between 10 and 190 ms. Furthermore, the GateRT software precisely acquired breathing patterns with a maximum MAD of 0.30 ± 0.23 mm. The PCC constantly ranged between 0.998 and 1.000. Comparisons between TPS and measured dose profiles indicated absolute mean dose deviations within institutional tolerances of ±5%. Geometrical beam characteristics also varied within our institutional tolerances of 1.5 mm. The overall time delays were <60 ms and thus within both recommended tolerances published by ESTRO and AAPM of 200 and 100 ms, respectively. In this study, a non-invasive optical surface-guided workflow including image acquisition, treatment planning, patient positioning and gated irradiation at an ion-beam gantry was investigated, and shown to be clinically viable. Based on phantom measurements, our results show a clinically-appropriate spatial, temporal, and dosimetric accuracy when using surface guidance in the clinical setting, and the results comply with international and institutional guidelines and tolerances.
536 _ _ |a 315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315
|c POF4-315
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 7 |a breathing-adapted gating
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a commissioning
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a end-to-end testing
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a ion beam therapy
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a particle therapy
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a surface-guided radiotherapy
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Shafee, Jehad
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Tessonnier, Thomas
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Horn, Julian
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Winter, Marcus
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Naumann, Jakob
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Jäkel, Oliver
|0 P:(DE-He78)440a3f62ea9ea5c63375308976fc4c44
|b 6
|e Last author
|u dkfz
773 _ _ |a 10.1002/acm2.14249
|g p. e14249
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2010347-5
|n 1
|p e14249
|t Journal of applied clinical medical physics
|v 25
|y 2024
|x 1526-9914
909 C O |p VDB
|o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:286386
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 6
|6 P:(DE-He78)440a3f62ea9ea5c63375308976fc4c44
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Bildgebung und Radioonkologie
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2023
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b J APPL CLIN MED PHYS : 2022
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0320
|2 StatID
|b PubMed Central
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2023-01-03T20:18:43Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-01-03T20:18:43Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Double anonymous peer review
|d 2023-01-03T20:18:43Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-01-03T20:18:43Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2023-10-22
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2023-10-22
920 2 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
|k E040
|l E040 Med. Physik in der Strahlentherapie
|x 0
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
|k E040
|l E040 Med. Physik in der Strahlentherapie
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21