Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison between conventional and hypofractionated breast treatment plans using the Halcyon system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this research is to compare the efficacy of conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment plans for breast cancer patients, with a specific focus on the unique features of the Halcyon system. Methods and materials: The study collected and analyzed dose volume histogram (DVH) data for two groups of treatment plans implemented using the Halcyon system. The first group consisted of 19 patients who received conventional fractionated (CF) treatment with a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, while the second group comprised 9 patients who received hypofractionated (HF) treatment with a total dose of 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions. The DVH data was used to calculate various parameters, including tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD), using radiobiological models. Results: The results indicated that the CF plan resulted in higher TCP but lower NTCP for the lungs compared to the HF plan. The EUD for the HF plan was approximately 49 Gy (114% of its total dose) while that for the CF plan was around 53 Gy (107% of its total dose). Conclusions: The analysis suggests that while the CF plan is better at controlling tumors, it is not as effective as the HF plan in minimizing side effects. Additionally, it is suggested that there may be an optimal configuration for the HF plan that can provide the same or higher EUD than the CF plan.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".