Online daily assessment of dose change in head and neck radiotherapy without dose‐recalculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancers are commonly treated with radiation therapy, but due to possible volume changes, plan adaptation may be required during the course of treatment. Currently, plan adaptations consume significant clinical resources. Existing methods to evaluate the need for plan adaptation requires deformable image registration (DIR) to a new CT simulation or daily cone beam CT (CBCT) images and the recalculation of the dose distribution. In this study, we explore a tool to assist the decision for plan adaptation using a CBCT without re-computation of dose, allowing for rapid online assessment. METHODS: This study involved 18 head and neck cancer patients treated with CBCT image guidance who had their treatment plan modified based on a new CT simulation (ReCT). Dose changes were estimated using different methods and compared to the current gold standard of using DIR between the planning CT scan (PCT) and ReCT with recomputed dose. The first and second methods used DIR between the PCT and daily CBCT with the planned dose or recalculated dose from the ReCT respectively, with the dose transferred to the CBCT using rigid registration. The necessity of plan adaptation was assessed by the change in dose to 95% of the planning target volume (D95) and mean dose to the parotids. RESULTS: The treatment plans were adapted clinically for all 18 patients but only 7 actually needed an adaptation yielding 11 unnecessary adaptations. Applying a method using the daily CBCT with the planned dose distribution would have yielded only four unnecessary adaptations and no missed adaptations: a significant improvement from that done clinically. CONCLUSION: Using the DIR between the planning CT and daily CBCT can flag cases for plan adaptation before every fraction while not requiring a new re-planning CT scan and dose recalculation.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".