Determination of prospective displacement‐based gate threshold for respiratory‐gated radiation delivery from retrospective phase‐based gate threshold selected at 4D CT simulation
Authors: Vedam S. , Archambault L. , Starkschall G. , Mohan R. , Beddar S. 
Published: November 2007

Four‐dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) imaging has found increasing importance in the localization of tumor and surrounding normal structures throughout the respiratory cycle. Based on such tumor motion information, it is possible to identify the appropriate phase interval for respiratory gated treatment planning and delivery. Such a gating phase interval is determined retrospectively based on tumor motion from internal tumor displacement. However, respiratory‐gated treatment is delivered prospectively based on motion determined predominantly from an external monitor. Therefore, the simulation gate threshold determined from the retrospective phase interval selected for gating at 4D CT simulation may not correspond to the delivery gate threshold that is determined from the prospective external monitor displacement at treatment delivery. The purpose of the present work is to establish a relationship between the thresholds for respiratory gating determined at CT simulation and treatment delivery, respectively. One hundred fifty external respiratory motion traces, from 90 patients, with and without audio‐visual biofeedback, are analyzed. Two respiratory phase intervals, 40%–60% and 30%–70%, are chosen for respiratory gating from the 4D CT‐derived tumor motion trajectory. From residual tumor displacements within each such gating phase interval, a simulation gate threshold is defined based on (a) the average and (b) the maximum respiratory displacement within the phase interval. The duty cycle for prospective gated delivery is estimated from the proportion of external monitor displacement data points within both the selected phase interval and the simulation gate threshold. The delivery gate threshold is then determined iteratively to match the above determined duty cycle. The magnitude of the difference between such gate thresholds determined at simulation and treatment delivery is quantified in each case. Phantom motion tests yielded coincidence of simulation and delivery gate thresholds to within 0.3%. For patient data analysis, differences between simulation and delivery gate thresholds are reported as a fraction of the total respiratory motion range. For the smaller phase interval, the differences between simulation and delivery gate thresholds are and with and without audio‐visual biofeedback, respectively, when the simulation gate threshold is determined based on the mean respiratory displacement within the 40%–60% gating phase interval. For the longer phase interval, corresponding differences are and with and without audio‐visual biofeedback, respectively. Alternatively, when the simulation gate threshold is determined based on the maximum average respiratory displacement within the gating phase interval, greater differences between simulation and delivery gate thresholds are observed. A relationship between retrospective simulation gate threshold and prospective delivery gate threshold for respiratory gating is established and validated for regular and nonregular respiratory motion. Using this relationship, the delivery gate threshold can be reliably estimated at the time of 4D CT simulation, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of respiratory‐gated radiation delivery.