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