Evaluation of the 4D <scp>RADPOS</scp> dosimetry system for dose and position quality assurance of CyberKnife
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The Synchrony respiratory motion tracking of the CyberKnife system purports to provide real-time tumor motion compensation during robotic radiosurgery. Such a complex delivery system requires thorough quality assurance. In this work, RADPOS applicability as a dose and position quality assurance tool for CyberKnife treatments is assessed quantitatively for different phantom types and breathing motions, which increase in complexity to more closely resemble clinical situations. METHODS: Two radiotherapy treatment experiments were performed where dose and position were measured with the RADPOS probe housed within a Solid Water phantom. For the first experiment, a Solid Water breast phantom was irradiated using isocentric beam delivery while stationary or moving sinusoidally in the anterior/posterior direction. For the second experiment, a phantom consisting of a Solid Water tumor in lung equivalent material was irradiated using isocentric and non-isocentric beam delivery while either stationary or moving. The phantom movement was either sinusoidal or based on a real patient's breathing waveform. For each experiment, RADPOS dose measurements were compared to EBT3 GafChromic film dose measurements and the CyberKnife treatment planning system's (TPS) Monte Carlo and ray-tracing dose calculation algorithms. RADPOS position measurements were compared to measurements made by the CyberKnife system and to the predicted breathing motion models used by the Synchrony respiratory motion compensation. RESULTS: For the static and dynamic (i.e., sinusoidal motion) cases of the breast experiment, RADPOS, film and the TPS agreed at the 2.0% level within 1.1 σ of estimated combined uncertainties. RADPOS position measurements were in good agreement with LED and fiducial position measurements, where the average standard deviation (SD) of the differences between any two of the three position datasets was ≤0.5 mm for all directions. For the 10 mm peak to peak amplitude sinusoidal motion of the breast experiment, the average Synchrony correlation errors were ≤0.2 mm, indicative of an accurate predictive model. For all the cases of the lung experiment, RADPOS and film measurements agreed with each other at the 2.0% level within 1.5 σ of estimated experimental uncertainties provided that the measurements were corrected for imaging dose. The measured dose for RADPOS and film were 4.0% and 3.4% higher, respectively, than the TPS for the most complex dynamic cases (i.e., irregular motion) considered for the lung experiment. Assessment of the Synchrony correlation models by RADPOS showed that model accuracy declined as motion complexity increased; the SD of the differences between RADPOS and model position data measurements was ≤0.8 mm for sinusoidal motion but increased to ≤2.6 mm for irregular patient waveform motion. These results agreed with the Synchrony correlation errors reported by the CyberKnife system. CONCLUSIONS: RADPOS is an accurate and precise QA tool for dose and position measurements for CyberKnife deliveries with respiratory motion compensation.
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 | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».