MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simultaneous Infield Boost With Helical Tomotherapy for Patients With 1 to 3 Brain Metastases

2007· article· en· W2070148052 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn Bauman, Slav Yartsev, B Fisher, Tomas Kron, Normand Laperrière, M. Heydarian, Jake VanDyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyMedicineRadiosurgeryNuclear medicineRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planningImaging phantomStereotaxisStereotactic radiation therapyDose fractionationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We sought to model the feasibility of a simultaneous in field boost (SIB) to individual brain metastases during a course of whole brain radiotherapy (WBXRT) using helical tomotherapy (HT) intensity-modulated radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Planning computed tomography data from 14 patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were used to model an intralesional SIB delivery that yielded a total intralesional dose of 60 Gy with a surrounding whole brain dose of 30 Gy (designed to be isoeffective to WBXRT of 30 Gy with an 18 Gy in 1 fraction radiosurgery boost). Accuracy of treatment of a phantom on the HT unit was measured. Comparisons of HT delivery versus a conventional stereotactic radiotherapy technique for a particularly challenging simulated anatomy were made. RESULTS: In all cases, SIB to 60 Gy with WBXRT to 30 Gy was possible while maintaining critical structures below assigned dose limits. Estimated radiation delivery time for the SIB treatment was approximately 10 minutes per fraction. Planning and treatment of the head phantom was associated with an overall accuracy of 2 mm. Comparison to conventional noncoplanar arc fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy plan demonstrated similar target coverage and improved critical tissue sparing even for a challenging anatomy with multiple lesions in the same plane as the optic apparatus. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, use of an image guided SIB using HT seemed feasible and a phase I trial initiated at our institution is described. Potential advantages of this approach include frameless stereotaxis through daily megavoltage computed tomography localization, more efficient use of resources and exploitation of radiobiologic advantages of fractionation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207