MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The impact of varying rectal contours on rectal dose in prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated radiation

2007· article· en· W2966148971 on OpenAlexaff
B. Joshua, Sergio Faria, Horacio Patrocinio, F DeBlois, Marie Duclos, Marc David, George Shenouda, Luís Souhami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRectumMedicineProstateRadiation therapyProstate cancerNuclear medicineColorectal cancerContouringCancerRectal examinationRadiologyUrologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

15598 Background: In curative radiation treatment of prostate cancer,the advent of 3DCRT has made a reduction in the incidence of normal tissue toxicities while optimizing tumor control. To optimize 3DCRT, the ICRU has published standard definitions of target volumes and organs at risk such that the tumor can receive the optimal dose with as little as possible dose to the organs at risk. However, the definition of the rectum as an organ at risk in radiation treatment of the prostate varies widely among institutions and so does the report of toxicities. We studied the effect of varying rectal contouring on rectal dose obtained from DVHs in a homogenous group of prostate cancer patients treated with hypo fractionationed radiation. Methods: 71 patients with favorable risk prostate cancer treated with a total of 66Gy in 3Gy/day fractionation.18 MV photons in a 5-field technique was used. None of the patients received hormonal therapy. Their treatment plans were archived and the rectum was re-contoured by a single investigator. 4 different contours were drawn to compare the rectal dose: i) the whole rectum from the anal verge to the recto sigmoid junction (WR); ii) the rectum from 1cm below the PTV to 1cm above (RPTV); iii) the rectal wall (i.e. the inner and outer rectal wall) from the anal verge to the recto sigmoid junction (RW); iv) the rectal wall from 1cm below the PTV to 1cm above (RWPTV) Results: There were significant differences in the median volume, minimum, mean rectal doses and dose to 50% of the volume, (p=0.0001). The whole rectum (WR) is having the lowest and the rectal wall with 1cm above and below the PTV (RWPTV) having the highest in all the parameters. The only parameter not significantly different among the 4 contours is the maximum rectal dose. Conclusion: the varied rectal contouring across different institutions is a possible reason for the broadly different reports of rectal toxicity after prostate irradiation. Our results suggest significant differences in rectal doses with varied contouring. Contouring the rectal wall only and limiting the volume to 1cm above and below the PTV confers the highest mean rectal dose. Comparison of rectal toxicity between institutions can only be meaningful if a consensual volume definition of the organ at risk is agreed upon. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.420 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→