SU-E-T-234: Modulated Photon Radiotherapy (XMRT):The Impact of Incorporating Energy Modulation Into Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a new radiotherapy plan optimization technique that, for a given organ geometry, will find the optimal photon beam energies and fluences to produce a desirable dose distribution. This new modulated (both in energy and fluence) photon radiotherapy (XMRT) was compared with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for a simple organ geometry. Methods: The XMRT optimization was formulated using a linear programming approach where the objective function is the mean dose to the healthy organs and dose-point constraints were assigned to each organ of interest. The organ geometry consisted of a target, two organs at risk (OARs), and normal tissue. A seven-equispaced-coplanar beam arrangement was used. For conventional IMRT, only 6 MV beams were available, while XMRT was optimized using 6 and 18 MV beams. A prescribed dose (PD) of 72 GY was assigned to the target, with upper and lower bounds of 110% and 95% of the PD, respectively. Both OARs were assigned a maximum dose of 64 Gy, while the normal tissue was assigned a maximum dose of 66 Gy. A numerical solver, Gurobi, generated solutions for the XMRT and IMRT problems. The dose-volume histograms from IMRT and XMRT solutions were compared. Results: The maximum, minimum, mean, and homogeneity of the dose to the target were comparable between IMRT and XMRT. Though IMRT had improved dose conformity relative to XMRT, XMRT reduced the mean dose to both OARs by more than 1 Gy. For normal tissue, an increase of 5 Gy in mean dose and 27 percent in integral dose was seen for IMRT relative to XMRT. Conclusion: This work demonstrates the benefits of simultaneously modulating photon beam energy and fluence using our XMRT approach in a given phantom geometry. While target coverage was comparable, dose to healthy structures was reduced using XMRT.
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) | 0.002 | 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".