Dose-volume consistency and radiobiological characterization between prostate IMRT and VMAT plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Dose-volume consistency of the planning target volume (PTV) and rectum for the prostate intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were evaluated and compared.Dependences of radiobiological parameters of the prostate and rectum on the PTV and rectal volume were also investigated.Methods: From 40 prostate IMRT and 50 VMAT patients treated with the same prescription (78 Gy per 39 fractions) and dose-volume criteria in the inverse planning, the prostate tumour control probability (TCP), rectal equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated.The dose-volume consistency of the PTV and rectum, demonstrating the variability of dose-volume histogram (DVH) among patients, was defined and calculated as per the deviation between the corresponding and mean DVH.Results: For the IMRT plans, the prostate TCP was found increasing with the PTV with a rate equal to 1.05 × 10 -3 % cm -3 , which was lower than 1.11 × 10 -3 % cm -3 for the VMAT plans.Both the rectal EUD and rectal NTCP were found decreasing with the rectal volume.The decrease rates for the IMRT plans (EUD = 0.47 × 10 -3 Gy cm -3 and NTCP = 3.94 × 10 -2 % cm -3 ) were higher than those for the VMAT (EUD = 0.28 × 10 -3 Gy cm -3 and NTCP = 2.61 × 10 -2 % cm -3 ).Conclusion: For the dose-volume consistency, small prostate TCP variation could be achieved by decreasing the dose-volume variability among the IMRT and VMAT plans.However, dependences of the rectal EUD and rectal NTCP on the dose-volume variability were not significant.It is concluded that maintaining a good dose-volume consistency in prostate plans can decrease the prostate TCP variation among the IMRT and VMAT patients.However, dose-volume variability is not affected by variations of the rectal EUD and rectal NTCP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".