SU‐FF‐T‐112: Boost Within a Boost in Permanent Seed Implants: Dosimetric and Clinical Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Study the dosimetric and clinical impact on the target volume, boost volume (BV) and urethra of performing boosts in seed implants. Method and Materials: 35 localized prostate cancer patients with detailed biopsy results were treated with permanent seed implants Personalized plans in which BV corresponding to regions of positive biopsy were generated intra‐operatively based on a simulated annealing inverse planning algorithm. A second plan was generated for each patient without the BV. The dose objectives are 144 Gy to the prostate with a 3–4 mm margin, 2/3 (1/3) of the prostate covered by 150% (200%) of the prescription dose (PD), urethra V150 less than 10% and D5 should below 220 Gy. Finally, 100% of BV should receive 150% PD (or 216 Gy). Results: Comparing plans without and with BV show no significant change in the number of seeds, needles, prostate V100 and V200 (p>0.37). Prostate V150 and D90 show significant differences increasing from 65% to 70% and from 187 Gy to 191 Gy. By forcing the coverage of the BV, the 150% isodose lines (which extend outside the prostate) shift inside of the prostate. This small increase in prostate V150 leads to significant increases of the BV V150 from 79% (lowest 42%) to 94% (lowest 86%). BV do not translate to higher urethra doses (V150 and D5). BV are relatively small compared to the prostate V150 volumes (average ratio of 18%). Thus multiple seed reconfigurations inside the prostate are achievable to cover BV. Conclusion: Specific areas within the prostate can be boost to receive 150% of the PD with no impact on the urethra. Large volumes of these dose levels are inherent to the procedure. The plans lead essentially to a rearrangement of the seed positions. Potential radiobiological advantages could be obtained at no cost (procedure or time).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".