SU‐FF‐I‐13: Dose Delivered to Patients for Megavoltage Cone‐Beam CT Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Megavoltage Cone‐Beam CT (MVCBCT) has recently been introduced in the clinic to improve patient alignment prior to dose delivery. The objective of this research was to evaluate the dose delivered to patients for MVCBCT acquisition. We also studied the possibility of making simple plan modifications to compensate for the dose delivered by daily MVCBCT imaging. Method and Materials: Because MVCBCT uses the treatment beam, conventional CT scans (pelvis and head and neck patients) were imported in a treatment planning system (Phillips, Pinnacle) to simulate an MVCBCT acquisition. To validate the dose obtained from Pinnacle, a simple water‐equivalent cylindrical phantom with spaces for MOSFETs and an ion chamber was used to measure the actual dose delivered during MVCBCT. Results: The MVCBCT dose delivered to the phantom, calculated from Pinnacle, was within 3% to all the MOSFET measurement points. The difference between Pinnacle and the ion chamber was 0.2%. For a typical MVCBCT (arc: 270° to 110°) the delivered dose forms an anterior‐posterior gradient. Head and neck patients receive dose ranging from 0.7 to 1.2 cGy per MVCBCT monitor unit (MU). The range is 0.6 to 1.2 cGy per MVCBCT MU for pelvis patients. The total dose for daily positioning using MVCBCT can be reduced and made uniform by alternating between two opposed imaging arcs. Dose‐volume histograms of a compensated plan for a pelvis patient imaged with 10 MU MVCBCTs for 40 fractions show no additional dose to the target and small increases at low doses. Conclusion: Given that clinical MVCBCTs are currently performed at doses ranging from 2–15 MU, simple plan modifications, such as reducing the total number of MU, can be used to nearly eliminate the dose used for daily positioning. Results for other body sites will also be presented. Conflict of Interest: Research sponsored by Siemens OCS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".