<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>28</volume><submitter>Ehrbar S</submitter><pubmed_abstract>Radiotherapy in expiration breath-hold (EBH) has the potential to reduce treatment volumes of abdominal targets compared to an internal target volume concept in free-breathing. The reproducibility of EBH and required safety margins were investigated to quantify this volumetric benefit. Pre- and post-treatment diaphragm position difference and the positioning variability were determined on computed tomography. Systematic and random errors for EBH position reproducibility and positioning variability were calculated, resulting in margins of 7 to 12 mm depending on the prescription isodose and fractionation. A reduced volume was shown for EBH for lesions with superior-inferior breathing motion above 4 to 8 mm.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Physics and imaging in radiation oncology</journal><pagination>100509</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10692905</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Intra- and inter-fraction breath-hold variations and margins for radiotherapy of abdominal targets.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10692905</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Perryck S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moreira A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Andratschke N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ehrbar S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pavic M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schrader M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Garcia Schuler H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Marvaso G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Guckenberger M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Van Timmeren JE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tanadini-Lang S</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Intra- and inter-fraction breath-hold variations and margins for radiotherapy of abdominal targets.</name><description>Radiotherapy in expiration breath-hold (EBH) has the potential to reduce treatment volumes of abdominal targets compared to an internal target volume concept in free-breathing. The reproducibility of EBH and required safety margins were investigated to quantify this volumetric benefit. Pre- and post-treatment diaphragm position difference and the positioning variability were determined on computed tomography. Systematic and random errors for EBH position reproducibility and positioning variability were calculated, resulting in margins of 7 to 12 mm depending on the prescription isodose and fractionation. A reduced volume was shown for EBH for lesions with superior-inferior breathing motion above 4 to 8 mm.</description><dates><release>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2023 Oct</publication><modification>2025-04-05T11:45:45.427Z</modification><creation>2025-04-05T11:45:45.427Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10692905</accession><cross_references><pubmed>38045640</pubmed><doi>10.1016/j.phro.2023.100509</doi></cross_references></HashMap>