Larynx motion considerations in partial larynx volumetric modulated arc therapy for early glottic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To assess laryngeal motion in early glottic cancer in order to determine safe margins for partial larynx volumetric modulated arc therapy (PL-VMAT), and to quantify dosimetric advantages of PL-VMAT. METHODS: This prospective study included T1-2N0 glottic cancers treated with whole larynx VMAT (WL-VMAT). Pre- and mid-treatment 4D-computed tomography (4D-CT) and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allowed for assessment of larynx swallowing and respiratory motion. For 10 patients with lateralized lesions, PL-VMAT plans were calculated using margins derived from 4D-CT analysis. RESULTS: Twenty patients were accrued from 2014 to 2016. Mean amplitude of larynx swallowing excursion was 23 mm and 6 mm in the superior and anterior directions, respectively. Mean respiratory motion reached 4 mm and 2 mm in superior-inferior and antero-posterior directions, respectively. Pre-treatment 4D-CT analysis identified one patient with planning CT acquired during swallowing. Mid-treatment 4D-CT revealed larynx shift relative to vertebrae in 30% of cases. PL-VMAT allowed for significant reduction of mean doses to ipsilateral carotid, contralateral carotid, thyroid gland, contralateral arytenoid and larynx. Using 8 mm internal margin for PL-VMAT, swallowing resulted in clinical target volume excursion beyond 95% isodose line during ≤1.5% of total treatment time in all patients. CONCLUSION: Although swallowing motion is rare, rapid and easily suppressed by patients, there is a risk of systematic miss-targeting if planning CT is acquired during swallowing. Larynx position shift relative to vertebrae occurs in 1/3 of patients over the course of radiotherapy. With soft-tissue image guidance and margins accounting for respiratory motion, PL-VMAT allows safe reduction of dose to organs at risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".