MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054052547 · doi:10.7785/tcrt.2012.500338

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy versus 3D Non-Coplanar Conformal Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Early Stage Lung Cancer

2013· article· en· W2054052547 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Herbert, William Kwa, Sandy Nakano, K. James, Vitali Moiseenko, Joanne Wu, Devin Schellenberg, M. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyMedicineLung cancerStage (stratigraphy)LungNuclear medicineRadiologyOncologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a treatment option for patients with early stage lung cancer. Treatment duration can be >30 minutes per fraction with non-coplanar 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Whilst this is generally well tolerated, faster delivery techniques are desirable. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows for fast delivery of radiation treatment. The purpose of this planning study was to compare SBRT with 3D-CRT and VMAT, with VMAT plans generated using both single arc and 3 non-coplanar partial arcs. Ten patients who previously underwent SBRT (48 Gy in 4 fractions) with 3D-CRT were selected. VMAT plans were generated to treat the PTV while limiting doses to organs at risk. Cumulative dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters were compared between the 3 techniques using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. Treatment delivery time was also assessed. Both VMAT techniques covered target volumes more conformally than 3D-CRT with a mean V48/VPTV of 1.21 for 3D-CRT, 1.03 for 3 arc plans and 1.01 for single arc plans (p = 0.005). Dose constraints to organs at risk were met using all three techniques. Mean lung doses were 2.93 Gy for 3D-CRT, 2.87 Gy for single arc and 2.73 Gy for the 3 arc technique (3-arc vs. 3D-CRT: p = 0.009). Lung V20 for 3D-CRT, 1 arc and 3 arcs were 3.24%, 2.89% and 2.73%, respectively (3 arc vs. 3D-CRT: p = 0.028). Mean time to deliver a single fraction was 13 minutes for 3D-CRT, 9.2 minutes for 3 arcs and 5.5 minutes for 1 arc. VMAT resulted in improved conformality compared to 3D-CRT. The 3 arc technique appears to have the lowest dose to lung although the magnitude is unlikely to be clinically significant. The main advantage of VMAT over 3D-CRT is faster treatment delivery time. Shortened treatment times are anticipated to improve tolerability of this treatment and reduce the chance of error due to intra-fraction motion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology in Cancer Research & TreatmentSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207