Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UCSF

UC San Francisco Previously Published Works bannerUCSF

A systematic review and meta-analysis of liver tumor position variability during SBRT using various motion management and IGRT strategies

Published Web Location

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814021090198
No data is associated with this publication.
Creative Commons 'BY' version 4.0 license
Abstract

Purpose

To suggest PTV margins for liver SBRT with different motion management strategies based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

In accordance with Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-Reviews-and-Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a systematic review in PubMed, Embase and Medline databases was performed for liver tumor position variability. From an initial 533 studies published before October 2020, 36 studies were categorized as 18 free-breathing (FB; npatients = 401), 9 abdominal compression (AC; npatients = 145) and 9 breath-hold (BH; npatients = 126). A meta-analysis was performed on inter- and intra-fraction position variability to report weighted-mean with 95% confidence interval (CI95) in superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Furthermore, weighted-mean ITV margins were computed for FB (nstudies = 15, npatients = 373) and AC (nstudies = 6, npatients = 97) and PTV margins were computed for FB (nstudies = 6, npatients = 95), AC (nstudies = 7, npatients = 106) and BH (nstudies = 8, npatients = 133).

Results

The FB weighted-mean intra-fraction variability, ITV margins and weighted-standard-deviation in mm were SI-9.7, CI95 = 9.3-10.1, 13.5 ± 4.9; LR-5.4, CI95 = 5.3-5.6, 7.3 ± 7.9; and AP-4.2, CI95 = 4.0-4.4, 6.3 ± 7.6. The inter-fraction-based results were SI-4.7, CI95 = 4.3-5.1, 5.7 ± 1.7; LR-1.4, CI95 = 1.1-1.6, 3.6 ± 2.7; and AP-2.8, CI95 = 2.5-3.1, 4.8 ± 2.1. For AC intra-fraction results in mm were SI-1.8, CI95 = 1.6-2.0, 2.6 ± 1.2; LR-0.7, CI95 = 0.6-0.8, 1.7 ± 1.5; and AP-0.9, CI95 = 0.8-1.0, 1.9 ± 1.7. The inter-fraction results were SI-2.6, CI95 = 2.3-3.0, 5.2 ± 2.9; LR-1.9, CI95 = 1.7-2.1, 4.0 ± 2.2; and AP-2.9, CI95 = 2.5-3.2, 5.8 ± 2.7. For BH the inter-fraction variability, and the weighted-mean PTV margins and weighted-standard-deviation in mm were SI-2.4, CI95 = 2.1-2.7, 5.6 ± 2.9; LR-1.8, CI95 = 1.3-2.2, 5.5 ± 1.7; and AP-1.4; CI95 = 1.2-1.7, 6.1 ± 2.1.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis suggests a symmetric weighted-mean PTV margin of 6 mm might be appropriate for BH. For AC and FB, asymmetric PTV margins (weighted-mean margin of 4 mm (AP), 6 mm (SI/LR)) might be appropriate. For FB, if larger (>ITV margin) intra-fraction variability observed, the additional intra- and inter-fraction variability should be accounted in the PTV margin.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Item not freely available? Link broken?
Report a problem accessing this item