SU‐F‐T‐15: Evaluation of 192Ir, 60Co and 169Yb Sources for High Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy Inverse Planning Using An Interior Point Constraint Generation Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The effectiveness of using a combination of three sources, 60Co, 192Ir and 169Yb, is analyzed. Different combinations are compared against a single 192Ir source on prostate cancer cases. A novel inverse planning interior point algorithm is developed in‐house to generate the treatment plans. Methods: Thirteen prostate cancer patients are separated into two groups: Group A includes eight patients with the prostate as target volume, while group B consists of four patients with a boost nodule inside the prostate that is assigned 150% of the prescription dose. The mean target volume is 35.7±9.3cc and 30.6±8.5cc for groups A and B, respectively. All patients are treated with each source individually, then with paired sources, and finally with all three sources. To compare the results, boost volume V150 and D90, urethra Dmax and D10, and rectum Dmax and V80 are evaluated. For fair comparison, all plans are normalized to a uniform V100=100. Results: Overall, double‐ and triple‐source plans were better than single‐source plans. The triple‐source plans resulted in an average decrease of 21.7% and 1.5% in urethra Dmax and D10, respectively, and 8.0% and 0.8% in rectum Dmax and V80, respectively, for group A. For group B, boost volume V150 and D90 increased by 4.7% and 3.0%, respectively, while keeping similar dose delivered to the urethra and rectum. 60Co and 192Ir produced better plans than their counterparts in the double‐source category, whereas 60Co produced more favorable results than the remaining individual sources. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential advantage of using a combination of two or three sources, reflected in dose reduction to organs‐at‐risk and more conformal dose to the target. three sources, reflected in dose reduction to organs‐at‐risk and more conformal dose to the target. Our results show that 60Co, 192Ir and 169Yb produce the best plans when used simultaneously and can thus be an alternative to 192Ir‐only in high‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".