Impact of intrafraction changes in delivered dose of the day for prostate cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy via MR-Linac
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of intrafraction pelvic motion by comparing the adapted plan dose (APD) and the computed delivered dose of the day (DDOTD) for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with SBRT on the MR-Linac.MethodsTwenty patients with PCa treated with MR-guided adaptive SBRT were included. A 9-field IMRT distribution was adapted based on the anatomy of the day to deliver a total prescription dose of 3000 cGy in 5 fractions to the prostate plus a 5 mm isotropic margin. Prostate, bladder, and rectum were re-contoured on the MR-image acquired during treatment delivery (MRBO). DDOTD was computed by propagating the dose from the daily adapted plan generated during treatment onto the MRBO.ResultsTarget coverage was met for all fractions, however, computed DDOTD was significantly less than the APD (p < 0.05). During an average treatment of 53 min, mean bladder volume increased by 116%, which led to a significant decrease in the DDOTD bladder D40% (p < 0.001). However, DDOTD to bladder 5 cc was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than APD. Rectum intrafraction changes were observed based on a volume change of −20% to 83% and presence of significant dose changes from APD to DDOTD for rectum D20% (p < 0.05) and D1cc (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsIntrafraction motion observed during prostate SBRT treatment on the MR-Linac have dosimetric impacts on both the target and organs at risk. Post-treatment computation using DDOTD may inform adaptation beyond anatomic changes in subsequent treatment fractions to best capitalize on MR-Linac technology and widen the therapeutic index of SBRT for PCa.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".