MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Image-guided lung radiotherapy: Bringing technology into routine clinical practice

2007· article· en· W2262825750 on OpenAlexaff
K. Franks, Andrea Bezjak, Jane Higgins, W. Li, Thomas G. Purdie, Anthony Brade, J. Cho, David G. Payne, David A. Jaffray, Jean‐Pierre Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerNuclear medicineRadiation therapyCone beam ctRadiation treatment planningImage registrationRadiologyComputed tomographyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Oncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

18093 Background: Cone-beam CT (CBCT), an imaging system integrated into the RT treatment unit, produces 3D images far superior to the conventional 2D portal images used for verification of patient (pt) set-up. This allows direct matching to the RT treatment planning CT images, potentially increasing the precision of RT delivery. We report on the broad implementation of this new RT image-guided paradigm in lung cancer patients at our center. Methods: All lung cancer pts undergoing radical RT were planned using 4DCT and imaged daily for repositioning with CBCT since 04/06. Initially, CBCT datasets were compared with the planning CT to assess the setup error (bone surrogate), using two immobilisation methods: evacuated bags (EB) and chest-board (ChB). Discrepancies >3 mm between the two datasets, in any direction, were corrected before the start of each RT fraction. Data were retrospectively analyzed to assess the initial and residual discrepancies (43 pts; 1,128 CBCTs).Alternative matching strategies were also tested (carina & tumor) using both manual and automatic methods (30 pts). Protocols had REB approval. Results: In total, 657 (58%) RT treatments required adjustment after initial positioning on the treatment couch. The two immobilization methods were equivalent (p=0.18); the mean pt shift required for ChB pts was 55±18mm and for EB pts was 69±32mm. Given that residual uncertainties were <3 mm, margin calculations reveal that large reductions (54–79%) may be possible for tumors not influenced by respiratory motion. The performance of automatic matching was reasonable for carina (correlation [r] 0.8–0.84) and bone (r 0.58–0.81) but discrepancies were seen for tumor (r 0.63–0.69). Conclusions: Daily CBCT provides greatly increased accuracy of set-up, to within 3 mm of the planned bony anatomy, which may improve tumor control by confirming geographic accuracy. The role of image-guided RT in reducing the volume of irradiated normal tissue may play an important role in addressing toxicity concerns associated with combined modality treatment and facilitate safe RT dose escalation. In addition to increasing RT precision, daily CBCT allows routine visualisation of the tumor as well as to bony anatomy, presenting an exciting opportunity to adapt the treatment plan based on an individual response. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.466 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→