Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025

Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Predicting cervical cancer target motion using a multivariate regression model to enable patient selection for
Lei Wang1, Dualta McQuaid1, Matthew Blackledge1
1The Joint Department of Physics at the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK.
Background And Purpose:
Interfraction motion during cervical cancer radiotherapy is substantial in some patients, minimal in others. Non-adaptive plans may miss the target and/or unnecessarily irradiate normal tissue. Adaptive radiotherapy leads to superior dose-volume metrics but is resource-intensive. The aim of this study was to predict target motion, enabling patient selection and efficient resource allocation.
Materials And Methods:
Forty cervical cancer patients had CT with full-bladder (CT-FB) and empty-bladder (CT-EB) at planning, and daily cone-beam CTs (CBCTs). The low-risk clinical target volume (CTVLR) was contoured. Mean coverage of the daily CTVLR by the CT-FB CTVLR was calculated for each patient. Eighty-three investigated variables included measures of organ geometry, patient, tumour and treatment characteristics. Models were trained on 29 patients (171 fractions). The Two-CT multivariate model could use all available data. The Single-CT multivariate model excluded data from the CT-EB. A univariate model was trained using the distance moved by the uterine fundus tip between CTs, the only method of patient selection found in published cervix plan-of-the-day studies. Models were tested on 11 patients (68 fractions). Accuracy in predicting mean coverage was reported as mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE) and R2.
Results:
The Two-CT model was based upon rectal volume, dice similarity coefficient between CT-FB and CT-EB CTVLR, and uterine thickness. The Single-CT model was based upon rectal volume, uterine thickness and tumour size. Both performed better than the univariate model in predicting mean coverage (MAE 7 %, 7 % and 8 %; MSE 82 %2, 65 %2, 110 %2; R2 0.2, 0.4, -0.1).
Conclusion:
Uterocervix motion is complex and multifactorial. We present two multivariate models which predicted motion with reasonable accuracy using pre-treatment information, and outperformed the only published method.

