Optimization of multi‐electrode implant configurations and programming for the delivery of non‐ablative electric fields in intratumoral modulation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Application of low intensity electric fields to interfere with tumor growth is being increasingly recognized as a promising new cancer treatment modality. Intratumoral modulation therapy (IMT) is a developing technology that uses multiple electrodes implanted within or adjacent tumor regions to deliver electric fields to treat cancer. In this study, the determination of optimal IMT parameters was cast as a mathematical optimization problem, and electrode configurations, programming, optimization, and maximum treatable tumor size were evaluated in the simplest and easiest to understand spherical tumor model. The establishment of electrode placement and programming rules to maximize electric field tumor coverage designed specifically for IMT is the first step in developing an effective IMT treatment planning system. METHODS: Finite element method electric field computer simulations for tumor models with 2 to 7 implanted electrodes were performed to quantify the electric field over time with various parameters, including number of electrodes (2 to 7), number of contacts per electrode (1 to 3), location within tumor volume, and input waveform with relative phase shift between 0 and 2π radians. Homogeneous tissue specific conductivity and dielectric values were assigned to the spherical tumor and surrounding tissue volume. In order to achieve the goal of covering the tumor volume with a uniform threshold of 1 V/cm electric field, a custom least square objective function was used to maximize the tumor volume covered by 1 V/cm time averaged field, while maximizing the electric field in voxels receiving less than this threshold. An additional term in the objective function was investigated with a weighted tissue sparing term, to minimize the field to surrounding tissues. The positions of the electrodes were also optimized to maximize target coverage with the fewest number of electrodes. The complexity of this optimization problem including its non-convexity, the presence of many local minima, and the computational load associated with these stochastic based optimizations led to the use of a custom pattern search algorithm. Optimization parameters were bounded between 0 and 2π radians for phase shift, and anywhere within the tumor volume for location. The robustness of the pattern search method was then evaluated with 50 random initial parameter values. RESULTS: The optimization algorithm was successfully implemented, and for 2 to 4 electrodes, equally spaced relative phase shifts and electrodes placed equidistant from each other was optimal. For 5 electrodes, up to 2.5 cm diameter tumors with 2.0 V, and 4.1 cm with 4.0 V could be treated with the optimal configuration of a centrally placed electrode and 4 surrounding electrodes. The use of 7 electrodes allow for 3.4 cm diameter coverage at 2.0 V and 5.5 cm at 4.0 V. The evaluation of the optimization method using 50 random initial parameter values found the method to be robust in finding the optimal solution. CONCLUSIONS: This study has established a robust optimization method for temporally optimizing electric field tumor coverage for IMT, with the adaptability to optimize a variety of parameters including geometrical and relative phase shift configurations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".