Experimental measurements and Monte Carlo simulations for dosimetric evaluations of intrafraction motion for gated and ungated intensity modulated arc therapy deliveries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory gated radiation therapy allows for a smaller margin expansion for the planning target volume (PTV) to account for respiratory induced motion and is emerging as a common method to treat lung and liver tumors. We investigated the dosimetric effect of free motion and gated delivery for intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with experimental measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. The impact of PTV margin and duty cycle for gated delivery is studied with Monte Carlo simulations. A motion phantom is used for this study. Two sets of contours were drawn on the mid-inspiration CT scan of this motion phantom. For each set of contours, an IMAT plan to be delivered with constant dose rate was created. The plans were generated on a CT scan of the phantom in the static condition with 3 mm PTV margin and applied to the motion phantom under four conditions: static, full superior-inferior (SI) motion (A = 1 cm, T = 4 s) and gating conditions (25% and 50% duty cycles) with full SI motion. A 6 by 15 cm piece of radiographic film was placed in the sagittal plane of the phantom and then irradiated under all measurement conditions. Film calibration was performed with a step-wedge method to convert optical density to dose. Gated IMAT delivery was first validated in 2D by comparing static film with that from gating and full motion. A previously verified simulation tool for IMRT that takes the log files from the multileaf collimator (MLC) controller and the gating system were adapted to simulate the delivered IMAT treatment for full 3D dosimetric analysis. The IMAT simulations were validated against the 2D film measurements. The resultant IMAT simulations were evaluated with dose criteria, dose-volume histograms and 3D gamma analysis. We validated gated IMAT deliveries when we compared the static film with the one from gating using 25% duty cycle using 2D gamma analysis. Within experimental and setup uncertainties, film measurements agreed with their corresponding simulated plans using 2D gamma analysis. Finally, when planning with margins designed for gating with 25% duty cycle and applying 50% or no gating during treatment, the dose differences in D(min,) D(99%) and D(95%) of the clinical target volume can be up to 27 cGy, 20 cGy and 18 cGy, respectively, for a plan with 200 cGy prescription dose. We have experimentally delivered gated IMAT with constant dose rate to a motion phantom and assessed their accuracies with film dosimetry and Monte Carlo simulations. Film dosimetry demonstrated that 25% gating and static plans are within 2%, 2 mm. The Monte Carlo simulation method was employed to generate dose delivered in 3D to a motion phantom, and the dosimetric results were reported. Since our film measurements agreed well with Monte Carlo simulations, we can reliably use this simulation tool to further study the dosimetric effects of target motion and effectiveness of gating for IMAT deliveries.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".