MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1193559356 · doi:10.1118/1.4924251

SU‐E‐J‐166: Sensitivity of Clinically Relevant Dosimetric Parameters to Contouring Uncertainty During Post Implant Dosimetry of Prostate Permanent Seed Implants

2015· article· en· W1193559356 on OpenAlexaff
Shahram Mashouf, Ananth Ravi, Gerard Morton, William Y. Song

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContouringDosimetryMedicineNuclear medicineBrachytherapyImplantProstateRadiation treatment planningRadiation therapyRadiologySurgeryComputer scienceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: There is a strong evidence relating post‐implant dosimetry for permanent seed prostate brachytherpy to local control rates. The delineation of the prostate on CT images, however, represents a challenge as it is difficult to confidently identify the prostate borders from soft tissue surrounding it. This study aims at quantifying the sensitivity of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters to prostate contouring uncertainty. Methods: The post‐implant CT images and plans for a cohort of 43 patients, who have received I–125 permanent prostate seed implant in our centre, were exported to MIM Symphony LDR brachytherapy treatment planning system (MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH). The prostate contours in post‐implant CT images were expanded/contracted uniformly for margins of ±1.00mm, ±2.00mm, ±3.00mm, ±4.00mm and ±5.00mm (±0.01mm). The values for V100 and D90 were extracted from Dose Volume Histograms for each contour and compared. Results: The mean value of V100 and D90 was obtained as 92.3±8.4% and 108.4±12.3% respectively (Rx=145Gy). V100 was reduced by −3.2±1.5%, −7.2±3.0%, −12.8±4.0%, −19.0±4.8%, − 25.5±5.4% for expanded contours of prostate with margins of +1mm, +2mm, +3mm, +4mm, and +5mm, respectively, while it was increased by 1.6±1.2%, 2.4±2.4%, 2.7±3.2%, 2.9±4.2%, 2.9±5.1% for the contracted contours. D90 was reduced by −6.9±3.5%, −14.5±6.1%, −23.8±7.1%, − 33.6±8.5%, −40.6±8.7% and increased by 4.1±2.6%, 6.1±5.0%, 7.2±5.7%, 8.1±7.3% and 8.1±7.3% for the same set of contours. Conclusion: Systematic expansion errors of more than 1mm may likely render a plan sub‐optimal. Conversely contraction errors may Result in labeling a plan likely as optimal. The use of MRI images to contour the prostate should results in better delineation of prostate organ which increases the predictive value of post‐op plans. Since observers tend to overestimate the prostate volume on CT, compared with MRI, the impact of the contouring uncertainty on V100 and D90 fortunately, has a conservative effect of underestimating the prostate coverage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→