ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Individualized breathing trace quality assurance for lung radiotherapy patients undergoing 4DCT simulation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of respiratory motion management technology for patients with lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (Review).Oncology letters · 2025Review
- Optimization of image reconstruction technique for respiratory-gated lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment planning using four-dimensional CT: a phantom study.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Individualized breathing trace quality assurance for lung radiotherapy patients undergoing 4DCT simulation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
4DCT simulation is a popular solution for radiotherapy simulation of lung cancer patients as it allows the clinician to gain an appreciation for target motion during the patient breathing cycle. Resultant binning of images and production of the 4DCT dataset relies heavily on the recorded breathing trace; but quality assurance is not routinely performed on these and there lacks any substantial recommendations thereof. An application was created for Windows in C# that was able to analyze the VXP breathing trace files from Varian RPM/RGSC and quantify various metrics associated with the patient breathing cycle. This data was then used to consider errors in voluming of targets for several example cases in order to justify recommendations on quality assurance. For 281 real patient breathing traces from 4DCT simulation of lung targets, notable differences were found between RGSC and application calculations of phase data. For any new patient without individualized QA, the average marked phase calculation (which is used for 4DCT reconstruction) is only accurate to within 19% of the actual phases. The error in BPM within the scan due to breathing rate variation is 37%. The uncertainty in amplitude due to breathing variation is 34% in the mean. Phase uncertainty leads to misbinning which we have shown can lead to missing 66% of the target for gated treatment. Variation in inhalation/exhalation level leads to voluming errors which, without individualized QA, can be assumed to be 11% (PTV is smaller than actual). Without individualized quality assurance of patient breathing traces, large uncertainties have to be assumed for metrics of both phase and amplitude, leading to clinically significant uncertainties in treatment. It is recommended to perform individualized quality assurance as this provides the clinician with an accurate quantification of uncertainty for their patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.