Mechanically-assisted and non-invasive ventilation for radiation therapy: A safe technique to regularize and modulate internal tumour motion.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Current motion mitigation strategies, like margins, gating, and tracking, deal with geometrical uncertainties in the tumour position, induced by breathing during radiotherapy (RT). However, they often overlook motion variability in amplitude, respiratory rate, or baseline position, when breathing spontaneously. Consequently, this may negatively affect the delivered dose conformality in comparison to the plan. We previously demonstrated on volunteers that 3 different modes of mechanically-assisted and non-invasive ventilation (MANIV) may reduce variability in breathing motion. The volume-controlled mode (VC) constraints the amplitude and respiratory rate (RR) in physiologic condition. The shallow-controlled mode (SH), derived from VC, increases the RR and decreases amplitude. The slow-controlled mode (SL) induces repeated breath holds with constrained ventilation pressure. In this study, we compared these mechanical ventilation modes to spontaneous breathing or breath hold and assessed their tolerance and effects on internal tumour motion in patients receiving RT. MATERIAL AND METHODS:The VC and SH modes were evaluated in ten patients with lung or liver cancers (cohort A). The SL mode was evaluated in 12 left breast cancer patients (cohort B). After a training and simulation session, the patients underwent 2 MRI sessions to analyze the internal motion of breast and tumour. RESULTS:MANIV was well tolerated, without any adverse events or oxymetric changes, even in patients with respiratory comorbidities. In cohort A, when compared to spontaneous breathing (SP), VC reduced significantly inter-session variations of the tumour motion amplitude (p = 0.01), as well as intra- and inter-session variations of the RR (p < 0.05). As to SH, the RR increased, while its variations within and across sessions decreased when compared to SP (p < 0.001). SH reduced the median amplitude of the tumour motion by 6.1 mm or 38.2% (p ≤ 0.01) compared to VC. In cohort B, breast position stability over the end-inspiratory plateaus obtained spontaneously or with SL remained similar. Median duration of the plateaus in SL was 16.6 s. CONCLUSION:MANIV is a safe and well tolerated ventilation technique for patients receiving radiotherapy. MANIV could thus make current motion mitigation strategies less critical and more robust. Clinical implementation might be considered, provided the ventilation mode is carefully selected with respect to the treatment indication and patient individualities.