Japanese journal of radiology · 2026
Patient-specific breath-hold reproducibility in thoracic and abdominal radiotherapy: comparison of auditory and visual biofeedback.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saito Masahide, Sano Naoki, Tozuka Ryota, Nemoto Hikaru, Ueda Koji, Komiyama Takafumi, Marino Kan, Onishi Hiroshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare patient-specific reproducibility and comfort of breath-holding using auditory and visual biofeedback guidance in a respiratory monitoring system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A respiratory monitoring device that tracks abdominal and chest wall motion was used to provide auditory and visual feedback. Forty patients with thoracic or abdominal tumors underwent three computed tomography scans under each guidance method. Breath-hold reproducibility was assessed by measuring the distance between an anatomical landmark and the tumor. Patient preferences for the guidance method were also recorded.
RESULTS: Both guidance methods demonstrated good breath-hold reproducibility. The mean displacement of the landmark-tumor distance was 1.26 ± 0.82 mm with visual guidance and 1.32 ± 0.72 mm with auditory guidance, with no statistically significant difference. No correlation was found between the two methods in individual patients. While 22 patients preferred visual guidance, 12 preferred auditory guidance, and 6 had no preference, the preferred method did not always correspond to improved reproducibility.
CONCLUSION: Regarding the reproducibility of breath-holding, both auditory and visual guidance methods demonstrated high precision. However, no significant differences were observed between the two approaches, and patient preference did not appear to affect reproducibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A respiratory monitoring device that tracks abdominal and chest wall motion was used to provide auditory and visual feedback. Forty patients with thoracic or abdominal tumors underwent three computed tomography scans under each guidance method. Breath-hold reproducibility was assessed by measuring the distance between an anatomical landmark and the tumor. Patient preferences for the guidance method were also recorded.
RESULTS: Both guidance methods demonstrated good breath-hold reproducibility. The mean displacement of the landmark-tumor distance was 1.26 ± 0.82 mm with visual guidance and 1.32 ± 0.72 mm with auditory guidance, with no statistically significant difference. No correlation was found between the two methods in individual patients. While 22 patients preferred visual guidance, 12 preferred auditory guidance, and 6 had no preference, the preferred method did not always correspond to improved reproducibility.
CONCLUSION: Regarding the reproducibility of breath-holding, both auditory and visual guidance methods demonstrated high precision. However, no significant differences were observed between the two approaches, and patient preference did not appear to affect reproducibility.