Improving the clinical workflow of a MR-Linac by dosimetric evaluation of synthetic CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive radiotherapy performed on the daily magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an option to improve the treatment quality. In the adapt-to-shape workflow of 1.5-T MR-Linac, the contours of structures are adjusted on the basis of patient daily MRI, and the adapted plan is recalculated on the MRI-based synthetic computed tomography (syCT) generated by bulk density assignment. Because dosimetric accuracy of this strategy is a priority and requires evaluation, this study aims to explore the usefulness of adding an assessment of dosimetric errors associated with recalculation on syCT to the clinical workflow. Sixty-one patients, with various tumor sites, treated using a 1.5-T MR-Linac were included in this study. In Monaco V5.4, the target and organs at risk (OARs) were contoured, and a reference CT plan that contains information about the outlined contours, their average electron density (ED), and the priority of ED assignment was generated. To evaluate the dosimetric error of syCT caused by the inherent approximation within bulk density assignment, the reference CT plan was recalculated on the syCT obtained from the reference CT by forcing all contoured structures to their mean ED defined on the reference plan. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) and dose distribution of the CT and syCT plan were compared. The causes of dosimetric discrepancies were investigated, and the reference plan was reworked to minimize errors if needed. For 54 patients, gamma analysis of the dose distribution on syCT and CT show a median pass rate of 99.7% and 98.5% with the criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, respectively. DVH difference of targets and OARs remained less than 1.5% or 1 Gy. For the remaining patients, factors (i.e., inappropriate ED assignments) influenced the dosimetric agreement of the syCT vs. CT reference DVH by up to 21%. The causes of the errors were promptly identified, and the DVH dosimetry was realigned except for two lung treatments for which a significant discrepancy remained. The recalculation on the syCT obtained from the planning CT is a powerful tool to assess and decrease the minimal error committed during the adaptive plan on the MRI-based syCT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".