Quantifying the effect of seed orientation in postplanning dosimetry of low‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radioactive seed orientations are usually ignored in clinical brachytherapy dosimetry for prostate implants. Associated with the anisotropic dose distribution of seeds, these orientations could cause dose differences between the planning configurations and the clinical postplanning dosimetry. This study will quantify the impact of seed orientation on the dosimetry. METHODS: 3D seed positions and θ and φ polar angles were obtained using five independent fluoroscopic images for 287 patients. Five dose calculation methods are compared: TG43-1D (1), TG43-2D parallel to implant axis (2) and with orientations (3), Monte Carlo (MC) simulations parallel (4), and MC simulations with orientations (5). GEANT4 v4.9.6 MC simulations were made in 1 mm(3) voxelized geometries based on the DICOM-RT information. Materials were assigned using thresholds based on the HU number, as recommended in TG186 reports. Seed voxels are overridden with prostatic materials and the layered mass geometry [Enger et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 57(19), 6269-6277 (2012)] allows subsequent placement of the source geometry. 500 million histories were used per patient. 3D dose and DVHs for each structure were calculated. RESULTS: The various seed orientations do not result in statistically significant differences on the dose metrics for the clinical target volume (CTV) or the urethra, based on the Student t-test p-value. Difference as low as -0.238% and 0.059% has been seen on the CTV D90, respectively, for the MC and the TG43. The difference between parallel and oriented calculations for the organs at risk (OARs) can differ by 2% on average. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from this study, seed orientations have no significant impact of CTV and urethra dose metrics but can affect OARs that are external to the CTV.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".