Physiologically guided approach to characterizing respiratory motion

Purpose: To characterize radiation therapy patient breathing patterns based on measured external surrogate information. Methods: Breathing surrogate data were collected during 4DCT from a cohort of 50 patients including 28 patients with lung cancer and 22 patients without lung cancer. A spirometer and an abdominal pneumatic bellows were used as the surrogates. The relationship between these measurements was assumed to be linear within a small phase difference. The signals were correlated and drift corrected using a previously published method to convert the signal into tidal volume. The airflow was calculated with a first order time derivative of the tidal volume using a window centered on the point of interest and with a window length equal to the CT gantry rotation period. The airflow was compared against the tidal volume to create ellipsoidal patterns that were binned into 25 ml × 25 ml/s bins to determine the relative amount of time spent in each bin. To calculate the variability of the maximum inhalation tidal volume within a free-breathing scan timeframe, a metric based on percentile volume ratios was defined. The free breathing variability metric (κ) was defined as the ratio between extreme inhalation tidal volumes (defined as >93 tidal volume percentile of the measured tidal volume) and normal inhalation tidal volume (defined as >80 tidal volume percentile of the measured tidal volume). Results: There were three observed types of volume-flow curves, labeled Types 1, 2, and 3. Type 1 patients spent a greater duration of time during exhalation withκ = 1.37 ± 0.11. Type 2 patients had equal time duration spent during inhalation and exhalation with κ = 1.28 ± 0.09. The differences between the mean peak exhalation to peak inhalation tidal volume, breathing period, and the 85th tidal volume percentile for Type 1 and Type 2 patients were statistically significant at the 2% significance level. The difference between κ and the 98th tidal volume percentile for Type 1 and Type 2 patients was found to be statistically significant at the 1% significance level. Three patients did not display a breathing stability curve that could be classified as Type 1 or Type 2 due to chaotic breathing patterns. These patients were classified as Type 3 patients. Conclusions: Based on an observed volume-flow curve pattern, the cohort of 50 patients was divided into three categories called Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3. There were statistically significant differences in breathing