Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the dosimetry and radiobiological model variation when a second photon arc was added to prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using the single-arc technique. Dosimetry and radiobiological model comparison between the single-arc and double-arc prostate VMAT plans were performed on five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 29-68.1 cm3. The prescription dose was 78 Gy/39 fractions and the photon beam energy was 6 MV. Dose-volume histogram, mean and maximum dose of targets (planning and clinical target volume) and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose-volume criteria in the treatment plan (D99% of PTV; D30%, D50%, V17Gy and V35Gy of rectum and bladder; D5% of femoral heads), and dose profiles along the vertical and horizontal axis crossing the isocenter were determined using the single-arc and double-arc VMAT technique. For comparison, the monitor unit based on the RapidArc delivery method, prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman-Burman-Kutcher algorithm were calculated. It was found that though the double-arc technique required almost double the treatment time than the single-arc, the double-arc plan provided a better rectal and bladder dose-volume criteria by shifting the delivered dose in the patient from the anterior-posterior direction to the lateral. As the femoral head was less radiosensitive than the rectum and bladder, the double-arc technique resulted in a prostate VMAT plan with better prostate coverage and rectal dose-volume criteria compared to the single-arc. The prostate TCP of the double-arc plan was found slightly increased (0.16%) compared to the single-arc. Therefore, when the rectal dose-volume criteria are very difficult to achieve in a single-arc prostate VMAT plan, it is worthwhile to consider the double-arc technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".