Skip to main content

Table 2 Interfractional uncertainty related to liver target localization from various studies

From: Assessment of setup uncertainty in hypofractionated liver radiation therapy with a breath-hold technique using automatic image registration–based image guidance

Study No. of daily images No. of patients Quantity evaluated AP (mm) LR (mm) SI (mm)
Dawson et al. [6] Not stated 5 Difference in the location of hepatic microcoil relative to bone M = 3.2 (range 1.2–6.5) M = 3.3 (range 1.4–5.9) M = 6.6 (range 2.3–10.9)
Balter et al. [23] Not stated 8 Random setup uncertainty σ = 4.1 σ = 4.2 σ = 7.0
Eccles et al. [11] 120 20 Location of diaphragm relative to vertebral body Not evaluated Not evaluated M = 3.4 (range 1.5–7.9)
Hawkins et al. [24] 78 MV images, 72 CBCT images 13 Residual error in liver position after orthogonal MV setup Σ = 1.3
σ = 3.0
Σ = 1.9
σ = 2.3
Σ = 1.1
σ = 2.7
Case et al. [25] 158 73 Liver position in patients treated with free-breathing technique M = −1.0
Σ = 1.6
σ = 2.7
M = 1.0
Σ = 1.5
σ = 1.8
M = 1.0
Σ = 3.1
σ = 3.6
156 Liver position in patients treated with ABC M = −0.9
Σ = 1.9
σ = 2.2
M = 0.8
Σ = 1.5
σ = 1.8
M = 0.3
Σ = 2.8
σ = 2.6
  1. AP anterior-posterior, LR left-right, SI superior-inferior, σ, random uncertainty, MV megavoltage, CBCT cone-beam computed tomography,Σ systematic uncertainty, M mean of all setup offsets, ABC active breathing control