Empirical planning target volume modeling for high precision MRI guided intracranial radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy for intracranial indications is a promising advance; however, uncertainties remain for both target localization after translation-only MR setup and intrafraction motion. This investigation quantified these uncertainties and developed a population-based planning target volume (PTV) model to explore target and organ-at-risk (OAR) volumetric coverage tradeoffs. Methods Sixty-six patients, 49 with a primary brain tumor and 17 with a post-surgical resection cavity, treated on a 1.5T-based MR-linac across 1329 fractions were included. At each fraction, patients were setup by translation-only fusion of the online T1 MRI to the planning image. Each fusion was independently repeated offline accounting for rotations. The six degree-of-freedom difference between fusions was applied to transform the planning CTV at each fraction (CTV fx ). A PTV model parameterized by volumetric CTV fx coverage, proportion of fractions, and proportion of patients was developed. Intrafraction motion was quantified in a 412 fraction subset as the fusion difference between post- and pre-irradiation T1 MRIs. Results For the left–right/anterior-posterior/superior-inferior axes, mean ± SD of the rotational fusion differences were 0.1 ± 0.8/0.1 ± 0.8/-0.2 ± 0.9°. Covering 98 % of the CTV fx in 95 % of fractions in 95 % of patients required a 3 mm PTV margin. Margin reduction decreased PTV-OAR overlap; for example, the proportion of optic chiasm overlapped by the PTV was reduced up to 23.5 % by margin reduction from 4 mm to 3 mm. Conclusions An evidence-based PTV model was developed for brain cancer patients treated on the MR-linac. Informed by this model, we have clinically adopted a 3 mm PTV margin for conventionally fractionated intracranial patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".