A systematic review of the impact of abdominal compression and breath-hold techniques on motion, inter-fraction set-up errors, and intra-fraction errors in patients with hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies
Amanda Webster , Yemurai Mundora , Catharine H. Clark , Maria A. Hawkins
{"title":"A systematic review of the impact of abdominal compression and breath-hold techniques on motion, inter-fraction set-up errors, and intra-fraction errors in patients with hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies","authors":"Amanda Webster , Yemurai Mundora , Catharine H. Clark , Maria A. Hawkins","doi":"10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><div>Reducing motion is vital when radiotherapy is used to treat patients with hepatobiliary (HPB) and pancreatic malignancies. Abdominal compression (AC) and breath-hold (BH) techniques aim to minimise respiratory motion, yet their adoption remains limited, and practices vary. This review examines the impact of AC and BH on motion, set-up errors, and patient tolerability in HPB and pancreatic patients.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>This systematic review, conducted using PRISMA and PICOS criteria, includes publications from January 2015 to February 2023. Eligible studies focused on AC and BH interventions in adults with HPB and pancreatic malignancies. Endpoints examined motion, set-up errors, intra-fraction errors, and patient tolerability. Due to study heterogeneity, Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis was used, and a 5 mm threshold assessed the impact of motion mitigation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In forty studies, 14 explored AC and 26 BH, with 20 on HPB, 13 on pancreatic, and 7 on mixed cohorts. Six studied pre-treatment, 22 inter/intra-fraction errors, and 12 both. Six AC pre-treatment studies showed > 5 mm motion, and 4 BH and 2 AC studies reported > 5 mm inter-fraction errors. Compression studies commonly investigated the arch and belt, and DIBH was the predominant BH technique. No studies compared AC and BH. There was variation in the techniques, and several studies did not follow standardised error reporting. Patient experience and tolerability were under-reported.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The results indicate that AC effectively reduces motion, but its effectiveness may vary between patients. BH can immobilise motion; however, it can be inconsistent between fractions. The review underscores the need for larger, standardised studies and emphasizes the importance of considering the patient’s perspective for tailored treatments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21041,"journal":{"name":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","volume":"201 ","pages":"Article 110581"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781402403559X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose
Reducing motion is vital when radiotherapy is used to treat patients with hepatobiliary (HPB) and pancreatic malignancies. Abdominal compression (AC) and breath-hold (BH) techniques aim to minimise respiratory motion, yet their adoption remains limited, and practices vary. This review examines the impact of AC and BH on motion, set-up errors, and patient tolerability in HPB and pancreatic patients.
Materials and methods
This systematic review, conducted using PRISMA and PICOS criteria, includes publications from January 2015 to February 2023. Eligible studies focused on AC and BH interventions in adults with HPB and pancreatic malignancies. Endpoints examined motion, set-up errors, intra-fraction errors, and patient tolerability. Due to study heterogeneity, Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis was used, and a 5 mm threshold assessed the impact of motion mitigation.
Results
In forty studies, 14 explored AC and 26 BH, with 20 on HPB, 13 on pancreatic, and 7 on mixed cohorts. Six studied pre-treatment, 22 inter/intra-fraction errors, and 12 both. Six AC pre-treatment studies showed > 5 mm motion, and 4 BH and 2 AC studies reported > 5 mm inter-fraction errors. Compression studies commonly investigated the arch and belt, and DIBH was the predominant BH technique. No studies compared AC and BH. There was variation in the techniques, and several studies did not follow standardised error reporting. Patient experience and tolerability were under-reported.
Conclusion
The results indicate that AC effectively reduces motion, but its effectiveness may vary between patients. BH can immobilise motion; however, it can be inconsistent between fractions. The review underscores the need for larger, standardised studies and emphasizes the importance of considering the patient’s perspective for tailored treatments.
期刊介绍:
Radiotherapy and Oncology publishes papers describing original research as well as review articles. It covers areas of interest relating to radiation oncology. This includes: clinical radiotherapy, combined modality treatment, translational studies, epidemiological outcomes, imaging, dosimetry, and radiation therapy planning, experimental work in radiobiology, chemobiology, hyperthermia and tumour biology, as well as data science in radiation oncology and physics aspects relevant to oncology.Papers on more general aspects of interest to the radiation oncologist including chemotherapy, surgery and immunology are also published.