IMRT for the breast: a comparison of tangential planning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three intensity-modulated tangential beam radiotherapy plan types for breast cancer treatment were evaluated based on PTV homogeneity index (HI) and equivalent uniform dose (EUD), heart V30 and EUD, whole lung V20 and EUD, and typical planning time compared to conventional 2D plans. 20 early-stage breast cancer patients were CT-scanned in the supine position, and tangential field extent, gantry and collimator angles were chosen. Four treatment plans were created for each patient: conventional, dynamically wedged plan based on the dose distribution on the central axial slice; forward planned IMRT; surface compensated plan created using an Eclipse tool and hybrid IMRT plan combining open and inverse-optimized fields. All three IMRT planning techniques represent significant improvement in PTV HI and EUD compared to conventional plans. Among the IMRT plans, the hybrid IMRT plan produced the best HI. IMRT lowered heart V30 and lung V20, but no significant differences in heart or lung EUD were detected between IMRT techniques. The IMRT technique with the shortest planning time was the compensated plan, followed by the hybrid IMRT. IMRT planning provides dosimetric benefits in breast cancer patients. The selection of the most appropriate IMRT technique must include careful consideration of the resources available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".