Experimental validation of the van Herk margin formula for lung radiation therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: To validate the van Herk margin formula for lung radiation therapy using realistic dose calculation algorithms and respiratory motion modeling. The robustness of the margin formula against variations in lesion size, peak-to-peak motion amplitude, tissue density, treatment technique, and plan conformity was assessed, along with the margin formula assumption of a homogeneous dose distribution with perfect plan conformity. METHODS: 3DCRT and IMRT lung treatment plans were generated within the ORBIT treatment planning platform (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) on 4DCT datasets of virtual phantoms. Random and systematic respiratory motion induced errors were simulated using deformable registration and dose accumulation tools available within ORBIT for simulated cases of varying lesion sizes, peak-to-peak motion amplitudes, tissue densities, and plan conformities. A detailed comparison between the margin formula dose profile model, the planned dose profiles, and penumbra widths was also conducted to test the assumptions of the margin formula. Finally, a correction to account for imperfect plan conformity was tested as well as a novel application of the margin formula that accounts for the patient-specific motion trajectory. RESULTS: The van Herk margin formula ensured full clinical target volume coverage for all 3DCRT and IMRT plans of all conformities with the exception of small lesions in soft tissue. No dosimetric trends with respect to plan technique or lesion size were observed for the systematic and random error simulations. However, accumulated plans showed that plan conformity decreased with increasing tumor motion amplitude. When comparing dose profiles assumed in the margin formula model to the treatment plans, discrepancies in the low dose regions were observed for the random and systematic error simulations. However, the margin formula respected, in all experiments, the 95% dose coverage required for planning target volume (PTV) margin derivation, as defined by the ICRU; thus, suitable PTV margins were estimated. The penumbra widths calculated in lung tissue for each plan were found to be very similar to the 6.4 mm value assumed by the margin formula model. The plan conformity correction yielded inconsistent results which were largely affected by image and dose grid resolution while the trajectory modified PTV plans yielded a dosimetric benefit over the standard internal target volumes approach with up to a 5% decrease in the V20 value. CONCLUSIONS: The margin formula showed to be robust against variations in tumor size and motion, treatment technique, plan conformity, as well as low tissue density. This was validated by maintaining coverage of all of the derived PTVs by 95% dose level, as required by the formal definition of the PTV. However, the assumption of perfect plan conformity in the margin formula derivation yields conservative margin estimation. Future modifications to the margin formula will require a correction for plan conformity. Plan conformity can also be improved by using the proposed trajectory modified PTV planning approach. This proves especially beneficial for tumors with a large anterior-posterior component of respiratory motion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».