Impact of abdominal compression on heart and stomach motion for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2024-07, Vol.25 (7), p.e14346-n/a
• Main Authors: Cecchi, Daniel David, Ploquin, Nicolas Paul, Faruqi, Salman, Morrison, Hali
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen; Abdomen - diagnostic imaging; Abdomen - surgery; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnostic imaging; Cardiac arrhythmia; Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography - methods; Heart; Heart - diagnostic imaging; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; immobilization; Liver; Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Liver Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Liver Neoplasms - surgery; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Lung Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Lung Neoplasms - surgery; Male; Organs at Risk - radiation effects; Patients; Radiation therapy; Radiosurgery - methods; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Respiration; Software; stereotactic radiotherapy; Stomach; Stomach - diagnostic imaging; Stomach - surgery; Toxicity; ventricular radioablation
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14346

Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal compression (AC) as a respiratory motion management method for the heart and stomach during stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR). Methods 4D computed tomography (4DCT) scans of patients imaged with AC or without AC (free‐breathing: FB) were obtained from ventricular‐tachycardia (VT) (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 18), and liver cancer (n = 18) patients. Patients treated for VT were imaged both FB and with AC. Lung and liver patients were imaged once with FB or with AC, respectively. The heart, left ventricle (LV), LV components (LVCs), and stomach were contoured on each phase of the 4DCTs. Centre of mass (COM) translations in the left/right (LR), ant/post (AP), and sup/inf (SI) directions were measured for each structure. Minimum distances between LVCs and the stomach over the respiratory cycle were also measured on each 4DCT phase. Mann‐Whitney U‐tests were performed between AC and FB datasets with a significance of α = 0.05. Results No statistical difference (all p values were >0.05) was found in COM translations between FB and AC patient datasets for all contoured cardiac structures. A reduction in COM translation with AC relative to FB was patient, direction, and structure specific for the three VT patients. A significant decrease in the AP range of motion of the stomach was observed under AC compared to FB. No statistical difference was found between minimum distances to the stomach and LVCs between FB and AC. Conclusions AC was not a consistent motion management method for STAR, nor does not uniformly affect the separation distance between LVCs and the stomach. If AC is employed in future STAR protocols, the motion of the target volume and its relative distance to the stomach should be compared on two 4DCTs: one while the patient is FB and one under AC.