Evidence-Based Planning Target Volume Margin Reduction for Modern Lung Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy Using Deformable Registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Standard planning target volume (PTV) margins for lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) are 5 mm. High-dose-rate volumetric modulated arc therapy delivered using flattening filter-free (FFF) beams with modern immobilization systems may allow for PTV margin reduction. This study assesses whether PTV margins can be reduced from 5 to 3 mm. METHODS: Target intrafractional motions derived from pretreatment and posttreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans for 33 patients receiving lung SABR treated with 10XFFF energy and 5-mm PTV margins from 2016 to 2019 were used to calculate the required PTV margin. Deformable registration of the planning CT scan and internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) contour to posttreatment CBCT scans for 36 consecutive patients with 4 fraction schedules was completed to capture volume changes and intrafractional movement. Plans were replanned with 3-mm margins and recalculated on each deformed CT scan to assess deformed IGTV (d-IGTV) coverage and organ-at-risk doses. RESULTS: < .001). Using theoretical models, the normal tissue complication probability for radiation pneumonitis decreased by a mean of 0.8% (range, 0.1%-2.7%), and the mean 2-year tumor control probability was 96.1% and 95.2% with 5-mm and 3-mm PTV margins, respectively. CONCLUSION: With modern treatment and immobilization techniques in lung SABR, 3-mm PTV margins maintain acceptable IGTV coverage, modestly reduce toxicity to organs at risk, and maintain a calculated 2-year local control rate of >95%.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".