A case study of IMRT planning (Plan B) subsequent to a previously treated IMRT plan (Plan A)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: Treatment of the contralateral neck after previous ipsilateral intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer is a challenging problem. We have developed a technique that limits the cumulative dose to the spinal cord and brainstem while maximizing coverage of a planning target volume (PTV) in the contralateral neck. Our case involves a patient with right tonsil carcinoma who was given ipsilateral IMRT with 70Gy in 35 fractions (Plan A). A left neck recurrence was detected 14 months later. The patient underwent a neck dissection followed by postoperative left neck radiation to a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions (Plan B). Materials and Methods: The spinal cord-brainstem margin (SCBM) was defined as the spinal cord and brainstem with a 1.0 cm margin. Plan A was recalculated on the postoperative CT scan but the fluence outside of SCBM was deleted. A further modification of Plan A resulted in a base plan that was summed with Plan B to evaluate the cumulative dose received by the spinal cord and brainstem. Plan B alone was used to evaluate for coverage of the contralateral neck PTV. Results: The maximum cumulative doses to the spinal cord with 0.5cm margin and brainstem with 0.5cm margin were 51.96 Gy and 45.60 Gy respectively. For Plan B, 100% of the prescribed dose covered 95% of PTVb1. Conclusion: The use of a modified ipsilateral IMRT plan as a base plan is an effective way to limit the cumulative dose to the spinal cord and brainstem while enabling coverage of a PTV in the contralateral neck.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".