Evaluating the effect of setup uncertainty reduction and adaptation to geometric changes on normal tissue complication probability using online adaptive head and neck intensity modulated proton therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . To evaluate the impact of setup uncertainty reduction (SUR) and adaptation to geometrical changes (AGC) on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) when using online adaptive head and neck intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Approach. A cohort of ten retrospective head and neck cancer patients with daily scatter corrected cone-beam CT (CBCT) was studied. For each patient, two IMPT treatment plans were created: one with a 3 mm setup uncertainty robustness setting and one with no explicit setup robustness. Both plans were recalculated on the daily CBCT considering three scenarios: the robust plan without adaptation, the non-robust plan without adaptation and the non-robust plan with daily online adaptation. Online-adaptation was simulated using an in-house developed workflow based on GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation and partial spot-intensity re-optimization. Dose distributions associated with each scenario were accumulated on the planning CT, where NTCP models for six toxicities were applied. NTCP values from each scenario were intercompared to quantify the reduction in toxicity risk induced by SUR alone, AGC alone and SUR and AGC combined. Finally, a decision tree was implemented to assess the clinical significance of the toxicity reduction associated with each mechanism. Main results . For most patients, clinically meaningful NTCP reductions were only achieved when SUR and AGC were performed together. In these conditions, total reductions in NTCP of up to 30.48 pp were obtained, with noticeable NTCP reductions for aspiration, dysphagia and xerostomia (mean reductions of 8.25, 5.42 and 5.12 pp respectively). While SUR had a generally larger impact than AGC on NTCP reductions, SUR alone did not induce clinically meaningful toxicity reductions in any patient, compared to only one for AGC alone. Significance Online adaptive head and neck proton therapy can only yield clinically significant reductions in the risk of long-term side effects when combining the benefits of SUR and AGC.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".