Geometrical tracking accuracy and appropriate PTV margins for robotic radiosurgery of liver lesions by SBRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the geometrical accuracy and estimate adequate PTV margins for liver treatments using the Synchrony respiratory tracking system.Material and methods: Treatment log files are analyzed for 72 liver patients to assess tracking accuracy. The tracking error is calculated as the quadratic sum of the correlation, the predictor and the beam positioning errors. Treatment target rotations and rigid body errors reported by the system are also evaluated. The impact of uncorrected rotations is assessed by rotating the planned dose distribution and reassessing target coverage. Total PTV margins are estimated by summing in quadrature tracking errors and rigid body errors. Relationships are explored between tracking errors, model linearity and motion amplitudes of internal and external markers.Results: Margins of 3, 2, 2 mm in SUP-INF, LT-RT and ANT-POST directions, respectively, are sufficient to account for tracking and beam positioning errors for 95% of patients. If rigid body error is also considered, margins increase to 4 mm isotropic. Rotations could not be corrected for 92% of patients due to imperfect fiducial implantation and limitations in the magnitude of corrections that the system can apply. Uncorrected rotations would lead to average estimated dose reductions of 2.7% ± 5.8% of the prescribed dose for D99 of GTVs (5 mm PTV expansion) in which the target was well covered in the original plan (28 of 31 GTVs). 80% of tracking models exhibit near linear correlation between internal and external marker motions with small tracking errors (<2.2 mm).Conclusions: Isotropic PTV margins considering tracking errors and target rigid body errors could be used for liver SBRT treatments if rotational corrections can be calculated accurately so that systematic rotational offsets can be avoided. The linearity of the internal and external breathing motions might be useful for other types of treatment modalities for liver cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 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".