Direction modulated brachytherapy (DMBT) for treatment of cervical cancer: A planning study with <sup>192</sup>Ir, <sup>60</sup>Co, and <sup>169</sup>Yb HDR sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate plan quality of a novel MRI‐compatible direction modulated brachytherapy (DMBT) tandem applicator using 192 Ir, 60 Co, and 169 Yb HDR brachytherapy sources, for various cervical cancer high‐risk clinical target volumes (CTV HR ). Materials and Methods The novel DMBT tandem applicator has six peripheral grooves of 1.3‐mm diameter along a 5.4‐mm thick nonmagnetic tungsten alloy rod. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to benchmark the dosimetric parameters of the 192 Ir, 60 Co, and 169 Yb HDR sources in a water phantom against the literature data. 45 clinical cases that were treated using conventional tandem‐and‐ring applicators with 192 Ir source ( 192 Ir‐T&R) were selected consecutively from int E rnational M RI‐guided BRA chytherapy in CE rvical cancer (EMBRACE) trial. Then, for each clinical case, 3D dose distribution of each source inside the DMBT and conventional applicators were calculated and imported onto an in‐house developed inverse planning optimization code to generate optimal plans. All plans generated by the DMBT tandem‐and‐ring (DMBT T&R) from all three sources were compared to the respective 192 Ir‐T&R plans. For consistency, all plans were normalized to the same CTV HR D90 achieved in clinical plans. The D 2 cm3 for organs at risk (OAR) such as bladder, rectum, and sigmoid, and D90, D98, D10, V100, and V200 for CTV HR were calculated. Results In general, plan quality significantly improved when a conventional tandem (Con.T) is replaced with the DMBT tandem. The target coverage metrics were similar across 192 Ir‐T&R and DMBT T&R plans with all three sources ( P > 0.093). 60 Co‐DMBT T&R generated greater hot spots and less dose homogeneity in the target volumes compared with the 192 Ir‐ and 169 Yb‐DMBT T&R plans. Mean OAR doses in the DMBT T&R plans were significantly smaller ( P < 0.0084) than the 192 Ir‐T&R plans. Mean bladder D 2 cm3 was reduced by 4.07%, 4.15%, and 5.13%, for the 192 Ir‐, 60 Co‐, and 169 Yb‐DMBT T&R plans respectively. Mean rectum (sigmoid) D 2 cm3 was reduced by 3.17% (3.63%), 2.57% (3.96%), and 4.65% (4.34%) for the 192 Ir‐, 60 Co‐, and 169 Yb‐DMBT T&R plans respectively. The DMBT T&R plans with the 169 Yb source generally resulted in the greatest OAR sparing when the CTV HR were larger and irregular in shape, while for smaller and regularly shaped CTV HR (<30 cm 3 ), OAR sparing between the sources were comparable. Conclusions The DMBT tandem provides a promising alternative to the Con.T design with significant improvement in the plan quality for various target volumes. The DMBT T&R plans generated with the three sources of varying energies generated superior plans compared to the conventional T&R applicators. Plans generated with the 169 Yb‐DMBT T&R produced best results for larger and irregularly shaped CTV HR in terms of OAR sparing. Thus, this study suggests that the combination of the DMBT tandem applicator with varying energy sources can work synergistically to generate improved plans for cervical cancer 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".