Prospective in silico study of the feasibility and dosimetric advantages of MRI-guided dose adaptation for human papillomavirus positive oropharyngeal cancer patients compared with standard IMRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We aim to determine the feasibility and dosimetric benefits of a novel MRI-guided IMRT dose-adaption strategy for human papillomavirus positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC). Materials/methods Patients with locally advanced HPV+ OPC underwent pre-treatment and in-treatment MRIs every two weeks using RT immobilization setup. For each patient, two IMRT plans were created (i.e. standard and adaptive). The prescription dose for the standard plans was 2.12 Gy/fx for 33 fractions to the initial PTV. For adaptive plans, a new PTV adaptive was generated based on serial MRIs in case of detectable tumor shrinkage. Prescription dose to PTV adaptive was 2.12 Gy/fx to allow for maximum dose to the residual disease. Any previously involved volumes received minimally a floor dose of 50.16 Gy. Uninvolved elective nodal volumes were prescribed 50.16 Gy in 1.52 Gy/fx. Dosimetric parameters of organs at risk (OARs) were recorded for standard vs. adaptive plans. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for toxicity endpoints was calculated using literature-derived multivariate logistic regression models. Results Five patients were included in this pilot study, 3 men and 2 women. Median age was 58 years (range 45–69). Three tumors originated at the tonsillar fossa and two at the base of tongue. The average dose to 95% of initial PTV volume was 70.7 Gy (SD,0.3) for standard plans vs. 58.5 Gy (SD,2.0) for adaptive plans. The majority of OARs showed decrease in dosimetric parameters using adaptive plans vs. standard plans, particularly swallowing related structures. The average reduction in the probability of developing dysphagia ≥ grade2, feeding tube persistence at 6-month post-treatment and hypothyroidism at 1-year post-treatment was 11%, 4%, and 5%, respectively. The probability of xerostomia at 6-month was only reduced by 1% for adaptive plans vs. standard IMRT. Conclusion These in silico results showed that the proposed MRI-guided adaptive approach is technically feasible and advantageous in reducing dose to OARs, especially swallowing musculature.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".