Feasibility of a unified approach to intensity‐modulated radiation therapy and volume‐modulated arc therapy optimization and delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the feasibility of unified intensity-modulated arc therapy (UIMAT) which combines intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization and delivery to produce superior radiation treatment plans, both in terms of dose distribution and efficiency of beam delivery when compared with either VMAT or IMRT alone. METHODS: An inverse planning algorithm for UIMAT was prototyped within the pinnacle treatment planning system (Philips Healthcare). The IMRT and VMAT deliveries are unified within the same arc, with IMRT being delivered at specific gantry angles within the arc. Optimized gantry angles for the IMRT and VMAT phases are assigned automatically by the inverse optimization algorithm. Optimization of the IMRT and VMAT phases is done simultaneously using a direct aperture optimization algorithm. Five treatment plans each for prostate, head and neck, and lung were generated using a unified optimization technique and compared with clinical IMRT or VMAT plans. Delivery verification was performed with an ArcCheck phantom (Sun Nuclear) on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems). RESULTS: In this prototype implementation, the UIMAT plans offered the same target dose coverage while reducing mean doses to organs at risk by 8.4% for head-and-neck cases, 5.7% for lung cases, and 3.5% for prostate cases, compared with the VMAT or IMRT plans. In addition, UIMAT can be delivered with similar efficiency as VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept work, a novel radiation therapy optimization and delivery technique that interlaces VMAT or IMRT delivery within the same arc has been demonstrated. Initial results show that unified VMAT/IMRT has the potential to be superior to either standard IMRT or VMAT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".