Table 1.
Percentage of all respondents (N = 200) using gating or tracking to manage respiratory motion for specific treatment sites or overall.
| Type of motion management | FB inspiration gating [%] |
FB expiration gating [%] |
(deep) inspiration BH [%] |
Expiration BH [%] |
All gating (FB/BH) [%] |
Tracking1 [%] |
Unknown2 [%] |
All including (excluding) unknown [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breast | 1 | 0 | 53 | <1 | 54 | 1 | 1 | 56 (55) |
| Lung | 13 | 11 | 17 | 4 | 32 | 10 | 6 | 45 (39) |
| Liver | 6 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 22 | 8 | 3 | 31 (29) |
| Pancreas | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 21 (19) |
| Lymphoma | 0 | 0 | 7 | <1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 (7) |
| Any site | 13 | 13 | 55 | 10 | 62 | 10 | 7 | 68 (65) |
Abbreviations: BH = breath-hold, FB = free-breathing.
1
One respondent reported using MLC tracking in a trial, all other users used CyberKnife.
2
For respondents reporting to do tracking on conventional linacs (without further explanation about the use of commercially unavailable technology), the authors assumed that tumour motion was monitored but that the beam was not realigned with the target.