Potential implications on TCP for external beam prostate cancer treatment when considering the bystander effect in partial exposure scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work investigated the potential implications on tumour control probability (TCP) for external beam prostate cancer treatment when considering the bystander effect in partial exposure scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The biological response of a prostate cancer target volume under conditions where a sub-volume of the target volume was not directly irradiated was modelled in terms of surviving fraction (SF) and Poisson-based TCP. A direct comparison was made between the linear-quadratic (LQ) response model, and a response model that incorporates bystander effects as derived from published in vitro data by McMahon et al. in 2012 and 2013. Scenarios of random and systematic misses were considered. RESULTS: Our results suggested the potential for the bystander effect to deviate from LQ predictions when even very small (< 1%) sub-volumes of the target volume were directly irradiated. Under conditions of random misses for each fraction, the bystander model predicts a 3% and 1% improvement in tumour control compared to that predicted by an LQ model when only 90% and 95% of the prostate cells randomly receive the intended dose. Under conditions of systematic miss, if even a small portion of the target volume is not directly exposed, the LQ model predicts a TCP approaching zero, whereas the bystander model suggests TCP will improve starting at exposed volumes of around 85%. CONCLUSIONS: The bystander model, when applied to clinically relevant scenarios, demonstrates the potential to deviate from the TCP predictions of the common local LQ model when sub-volumes of a target volume are randomly or systematically missed over a course of fractionated radiation therapy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".