200: Cone Beam Versus Stick Method: A Retrospective Analysis Comparing the Accuracy of Cone Beam Gap Measurements to Conventional Stick Measurements for Head and Neck Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Image-guidance to ensure correct patient set-up prior to treatment delivery is of utmost importance in SBRT.Many studies have demonstrated high levels of concordance between radiation therapists (RTs) and radiation oncologists (ROs) on daily verification based on electronic portal imaging and simulator films.There is limited data, however, on the concordance between RTs and ROs using CBCT pre-treatment images prior to SBRT.The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the level of concordance between RTs and ROs on CBCT pre-treatment verification images for SBRT.Methods and Materials: Twenty-one consecutively treated SBRT patients at a provincial institution were included in the study.CBCT was performed by both RO and RTs prior to delivery of each fraction for abdominal and bone SBRT treatments, and prior to first fraction for lung SBRT.RTs performed subsequent daily matches for lung SBRT.Initial CBCT match was performed by RTs as per centre guidelines or by previously specified instructions.ROs performed second match prior to SBRT delivery.Directional differences between RT and RO match were recorded and analyzed.Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine variability between RT and RO match, with values approaching 1 suggesting high concordance.Results: Thirty-six CBCT images were analyzed.Thirteen were lung, 20 abdominal (five liver, 15 pancreas) and three were bone SBRT cases.RO made adjustments to initial RT match in 12 (33%) of CBCT matches, with six matches having a direction shift of 0.1 to < 0.2 cm in any direction, and two matches with a directional shift of ≥ 0.2 cm.Mean maximum match difference was 0.12 cm (range: 0.02, 0.31 cm).Treatments requiring adjustment to the initial RT match did not differ by treatment site.Review of the two plans with match difference of ≥ 0.2 cm revealed no appreciable change in GTV coverage and with dose to organs at risk still within accepted constraints.Intraclass correlation coefficients for all CBCT matches were 0.998 (95% CI: 0.996-0.999),0.997 (95% CI: 0.995-0.999),0.996 (95% CI: 0.992-0.998) in the x, y, and z directions respectively.Intraclass correlation coefficients for CBCT matches that required adjustment by RO were similar at 0.995 (95%CI: 0.982-0.9980.982-0.998),0.995 (95% CI: 0.984-0.9990.984-0.999),0.989 (95% CI: 0.962-0.997) in the x, y, and z directions respectively.Conclusions: CBCT match for SBRT at our center shows high concordance between RTs and ROs.These findings support potential expansion of RT scope of practice at our institution to include independent CBCT matches for SBRT.
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 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».