Quantifying daily variation in volume and dose to the prostate, rectum and bladder using cone-beam computerised tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In the era of dose escalation for localised prostate cancer, the dose–volume histogram (DVH) is integral to the assessment of rectum and bladder dose constraints. However, reliance on a single planning computerised tomography-based (P-CT) dose distribution may not account for variations in delivered dose that results from deformation of the prostate, bladder and rectum. This study uses cone-beam CT (CBCT) datasets from five patients to investigate the concordance between the dose prediction from the initial treatment plan and the dose delivered during treatment. Methods The intensity-modulated radiation therapy distribution used for treatment was superimposed on alternate day CBCT images for each patient. Dose metrics and absolute volumes for the prostate, rectum and bladder were extracted from the CBCT-based DVH. Differences in dose and volumes were compared with the P-CT values, and significance was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results For all five case studies, the prostate dose coverage on CBCT plans was lower than predicted with an average reduction of 3% in mean dose. Significant differences in rectal volumes and dose were observed in two out of five and four out of five patients, respectively. Reductions in bladder volume and subsequent increases in dose were observed for three out of five patients. Conclusion The DVH from P-CT was unable to consistently predict the dose delivered to the bladder and rectum. The current bowel and bladder preparation protocols used at our institution did not eliminate variation in bladder and rectum volumes for the five patients included in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".