Bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy for Stage I seminoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A direct association between radiotherapy dose, side-effects and secondary cancers has been described in patients with seminoma. A treatment planning study was performed in order to compare computed tomography-based traditional radiotherapy (CT-tRT) versus bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (BMS-IMRT) in patients with Stage I seminoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We optimized in 10 patients a CT-tRT and a BMS-IMRT treatment plan to deliver 20 Gy to the para-aortic nodes. CT-tRT and IMRT consisted of anteroposterior-posterioranterior parallel-opposed and seven non-opposed coplanar fields using 16 and 6-MV photon energies, respectively. Dose-Volume Histograms for clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for both techniques using Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank-test. RESULTS: D(mean) to CTV and PTV were similar for both techniques, even if CT-tRT showed a slightly improved target coverage in terms of PTV-D(95%) (19.7 vs. 19.5 Gy, p = 0.005) and PTV-V(95%) (100 vs. 99.7%, p = 0.011) compared to BMS-IMRT. BMS-IMRT resulted in a significant reduction (5.2 Gy, p = 0.005) in the D(mean) to the active bone marrow (ABM). The V(100%) and V(75%) of the OARs were reduced with BMS-IMRT by: ABM-V(100%) = 51.7% and ABM-V(75%) = 42.3%; bowel-V(100%) = 15.7% and bowel-V(75%) = 16.8%; stomach-V(100%) = 22% and stomach-V(75%) = 27.7%; pancreas-V(100%) = 37.1% and pancreas-V(75%) = 35.9% (p = 0.005 for all variables). CONCLUSIONS: BMS-IMRT reduces markedly the dose to the OARs compared to CT-tRT. This should translate into a reduction in acute and long-term toxicity, as well as into the risk of secondary solid and hematological cancers.
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 | 0.000 | 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".