Dosimetric feasibility of brain stereotactic radiosurgery with a 0.35 T MRI‐guided linac and comparison vs a C‐arm‐mounted linac
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose MRI is the gold‐standard imaging modality for brain tumor diagnosis and delineation. The purpose of this work was to investigate the feasibility of performing brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with a 0.35 T MRI‐guided linear accelerator (MRL) equipped with a double‐focused multileaf collimator (MLC). Dosimetric comparisons were made vs a conventional C‐arm‐mounted linac with a high‐definition MLC. Methods The quality of MRL single‐isocenter brain SRS treatment plans was evaluated as a function of target size for a series of spherical targets with diameters from 0.6 cm to 2.5 cm in an anthropomorphic head phantom and six brain metastases (max linear dimension = 0.7‐1.9 cm) previously treated at our clinic on a conventional linac. Each target was prescribed 20 Gy to 99% of the target volume. Step‐and‐shoot IMRT plans were generated for the MRL using 11 static coplanar beams equally spaced over 360° about an isocenter placed at the center of the target. Couch and collimator angles are fixed for the MRL. Two MRL planning strategies (VR1 and VR2) were investigated. VR1 minimized the 12 Gy isodose volume while constraining the maximum point dose to be within ±1 Gy of 25 Gy which corresponded to normalization to an 80% isodose volume. VR2 minimized the 12 Gy isodose volume without the maximum dose constraint. For the conventional linac, the TB1 method followed the same strategy as VR1 while TB2 used five noncoplanar dynamic conformal arcs. Plan quality was evaluated in terms of conformity index (CI), conformity/gradient index (CGI), homogeneity index (HI), and volume of normal brain receiving ≥12 Gy (V12Gy). Quality assurance measurements were performed with Gafchromic EBT‐XD film following an absolute dose calibration protocol. Results For the phantom study, the CI of MRL plans was not significantly different compared to a conventional linac (P > 0.05). The use of dynamic conformal arcs and noncoplanar beams with a conventional linac spared significantly more normal brain (P = 0.027) and maximized the CGI, as expected. The mean CGI was 95.9 ± 4.5 for TB2 vs 86.6 ± 3.7 (VR1), 88.2 ± 4.8 (VR2), and 88.5 ± 5.9 (TB1). Each method satisfied a normal brain V12Gy ≤ 10.0 cm3 planning goal for targets with diameter ≤2.25 cm. The mean V12Gy was 3.1 cm3 for TB2 vs 5.5 cm3, 5.0 cm3 and 4.3 cm3, for VR1, VR2, and TB1, respectively. For a 2.5‐cm diameter target, only TB2 met the V12Gy planning objective. The MRL clinical brain plans were deemed acceptable for patient treatment. The normal brain V12Gy was ≤6.0 cm3 for all clinical targets (maximum target volume = 3.51 cm3). CI and CGI ranged from 1.12–1.65 and 81.2–88.3, respectively. Gamma analysis pass rates (3%/1mm criteria) exceeded 97.6% for six clinical targets planned and delivered on the MRL. The mean measured vs computed absolute dose difference was −0.1%. Conclusions The MRL system can produce clinically acceptable brain SRS plans for spherical lesions with diameter ≤2.25 cm. Large lesions (>2.25 cm) should be treated with a linac capable of delivering noncoplanar beams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".