MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989800141 · doi:10.1118/1.3611525

SU‐D‐BRC‐01: Multi‐Fraction Dose Distributions for Image‐Guided IMRT of Prostate: Impact on TCP and NTCP

2011· article· en· W1989800141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerry Battista, Carol Johnson, D. Turnbull, Jeff Kempe, Glenn Bauman, Jacob Van Dyk

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstateMedicineRectumRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineDosimetryProstate cancerRadiologyRadiation therapySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: IMRT of the prostate consists of multiple stages of treatment planning and dose delivery, each with inherent anatomical uncertainties. Differential filling of the bladder and rectum can displace the prostate during a course of treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of adapting to these anatomical changes using various CT image‐guided adaptive (IGART) strategies. Methods: Our computer model is based on the Philips Pinnacle treatment planning system. A multi‐fraction simulation of 5‐field IMRT (76 Gy/35 fractions) yields the daily dose accumulation in individual tissue elements. Using megavoltage CT studies of 13 prostate cases, cumulated dose distributions are mapped onto the reference treatment plan. Total dose‐volume histograms are then processed to estimate the changes in tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for various IGART scenarios. Results: Retargeting of the prostate generally maintains the intended TCP (typically 0.9 versus 0.8 with No Image Guidance) but is often associated with an enhanced risk of rectal toxicity (NTCP rises to 0.05 when Image Guidance is applied). This effect is due mainly to a systematic anterior shift caused by sag in the treatment couch (average 10mm). Without image‐guidance, this offset goes uncorrected, resulting in poorer coverage of the target with consistent avoidance of rectal exposure. Conclusions: Geometric repositioning without dose re‐planning is sufficient to maintain the intended TCP. IGART corrects for sag in the treatment couch and this results in greater risk of rectal toxicity, compared with no IGART. Smaller PTV margins could offset this effect, emphasizing the need for integrated image guided and intensity modulated delivery for optimal results. In the extreme, daily IMRT re‐planning based on in‐room imaging could exploit maximum benefits of this technology but this would require significantly more computing resources and streamlining of procedures at the treatment console. Research funding was provided by the Canadian Health Research Institutes and the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund (OCITS Project), with Philips Medical Systems as an industry partner.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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