Photon versus proton whole ventricular radiotherapy for non‐germinomatous germ cell tumors: A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if proton therapy reduces doses to cranial organs at risk (OARs) as compared to photon therapy in children with non-germinomatous germ cell tumors (NGGCT) receiving whole ventricular radiotherapy (WVRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dosimetric data for patients with NGGCT prospectively enrolled in stratum 1 of the Children's Oncology Group study ACNS1123 who received 30.6 Gy WVRT were compared. Target segmentation was standardized using a contouring atlas. Doses to cranial OARs were compared between proton and photon treatments. Clinically relevant dose-volume parameters that were analyzed included mean dose and dose to 40% of the OAR volume (D40). RESULTS: Mean and D40 doses to the supratentorial brain, cerebellum, and bilateral temporal, parietal, and frontal lobes were statistically significantly lower amongst proton-treated patients, as compared to photon-treated patients. In a subgroup analysis of patients uniformly treated with a 3-mm planning target volume, patients who received proton therapy continued to have statistically significantly lower doses to brain OARs. CONCLUSIONS: Children treated with proton therapy for WVRT had lower doses to normal brain structures, when compared to those treated with photon therapy. Proton therapy should be considered for patients receiving WVRT for NGGCT.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".