What Is the Optimal Radiation Technique for Esophageal Cancer? A Dosimetric Comparison of Four Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Esophageal cancer treatment requires large radiation fields due to the deep location of the esophagus in the mediastinum and the high incidence of radial spread. There is no optimal radiation technique to ensure appropriate target coverage and minimal dose to all normal structures. Methods Fifteen consecutive cases of locally advanced esophageal cancer treated with radical chemoradiation (CRT) were analyzed. The total prescribed dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. A total of 60 plans were generated for analysis, including four different methods for each case. Method 1 consisted of a four-field conformal technique; method 2 was a two-plan technique (antero-posterior (AP), postero-anterior (PA), two posterior oblique fields (RPO and LPO)); method 3 was a three-field conformal technique (AP, LPO, RPO); and method 4 was a volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) technique. Dose ratios were calculated using the minimum, maximum, mean, and median doses of methods 2-4 over the dose of method 1. Ratios for the planning target volume (PTV) and to surrounding organs were analyzed. Results The mean PTV dose ratio ranged from 0.994 to 1.048 (SD = 0.01) representing an adequate target coverage for all techniques based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the lungs, method 2 had the lowest lung V20 with a ratio of 0.861 (SD = 0.12), whereas method 3 had the highest with 1.644 (SD = 0.14). For the heart, method 3 had the lowest heart V40 with a mean dose ratio of 0.807 (SD = 0.09), whereas method 2 had the highest with 1.160 (SD = 0.11). For the liver, method 2 had the lowest V30 with a mean ratio of 0.857 (SD = 0.1) whereas method 4 had the highest with 1.672 (SD = 0.48). For the spinal cord, method 3 had the lowest mean dose ratio of 0.559 (SD = 0.09) whereas method 2 had the highest with 1.094 (SD = 0.04). Conclusion The four radiation techniques for esophageal cancer treatment were appropriate for target coverage. Method 2 had the most organ-sparing effect for the lungs and liver, and method 3 for the heart and spinal cord. VMAT did not add any significant sparing. A case-by-case decision should be made based on the patient's comorbidities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".