SU‐E‐T‐483: Treatment Planning Study of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Left‐Sided Breast and Chestwall Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To perform the comparison of dose distributions and dosevolume‐ histograms generated by VMAT and conventional field‐in‐field technique for left‐sided breast and chestwall cancers; to determine whether VMAT offers more dosimetric benefits than does the field‐in‐field technique. Methods: All VMAT and field‐in‐filed plans were produced in Eclipse(version 10). Five plans were generated for left‐sided breast and leftsided chestwall with supraclavicular nodes, respectively. A clockwise arc (CW) and a counter‐clockwise arc (CCW) were used with start and stop angles being 310o±10o and 140o±10o. Collimator angles were 30o for CW and 330o for CCW. The conformity index (CI) is the ratio of V95% over PTV. The homogeneity index (HI) is the ratio of the difference between D2% and D98% over the prescribed dose. The V5, as an indicator of low dose bath to organs‐at‐risk, was used for ipsilateral lung, heart, contralateral lung, and contralateral breast. The V20, as an indicator of radiation pneumonitis, was used for ipsilateral lung. Results: Breast/chestwall VMAT delivers much higher low dose bath to ipsilateral lung, contralateral lung and contralateral breast/chestwall for both intact breast and chestwall with nodes. V5 for heart is increased in VMAT plans. V20 for ipsilateral lung is lower in VMAT plans. PTV coverage is similar for both techniques. For one particular chestwall patient with supraclavicular and internal mammary nodes, VMAT offers superior dose coverage of PTVs with slightly more low‐dose‐wash to heart, contralateral lung and contralateral breast. Conclusion: This study indicates that there is generally no benefit using VMAT for left‐sided intact breast, due to large low‐dose‐bath (5Gy) to normal tissues with insignificant improvement in PTV coverage. Dosimetric benefits will be seen in VMAT plans for some chestwall patients with large size, and/or internal mammary nodes, etc. Whether a chestwall patient is treated with VMAT should be carefully analyzed on an individual basis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".