MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387311207 · doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2023.08.011

Novel hybrid treatment planning approach for irradiation a pediatric craniospinal axis

2023· article· en· W4387311207 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Ziemann, Florian Cremers, Laura Motisi, Dirk Albers, Miller MacPherson, Dirk Rades

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical dosimetry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTomotherapyNuclear medicineRadiation treatment planningRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a new treatment planning approach merging 3D-CRT and VMAT fields into a hybrid treatment plan (HybTP), in order to achieve an optimum dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) and protection of OAR. Craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI) treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is associated with high doses to the heart and eye lenses but provides better sparing of lungs and kidneys compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT treatment spares eye lenses and the heart, but lungs and kidneys are not as effective as 3D-CRT. Thus, a combination of both techniques (HybTP) may be optimal in sparing all these organs at risk (OAR). The results of HybTP are compared with helical tomotherapy (HT), intensity modulated radio therapy (IMRT), VMAT, and 3D-CRT plans. Hybrid, HT, VMAT, IMRT, and 3D-CRT treatment plans for a male child (age 6 years) with medulloblastoma were created and compared. A total dose of 35.2 Gy (PTV) with a dose per fraction of 1.6 Gy was prescribed. The following dose acceptance criteria were defined: (1)Mean PTV dose should be 100% of the prescribed dose, while the maximum dose should not exceed 107%. (2)At least 98% of the PTV should receive 95% of the prescribed dose. (3)The cribriform plate should be covered by the 95% isodose line. (4)The acceptance criteria for the OARs were: lenses D max <10 Gy, lungs D mean <7 Gy, kidneys D mean <15 Gy, heart D mean <26 Gy, and heart V 25 <10%. The plans were compared regarding dose homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), PTV coverage, (particularly at cribriform plate) and doses at OARs. Best conformity was achieved with HT (CI = 0.98) followed by VMAT (CI = 0.96), IMRT (CI = 0.91), HybTP (CI = 0.86), and 3D-CRT (CI = 0.83). The homogeneity index varied marginally. For both HT and IMRT the HI was 0.07, and for 3D-CRT, VMAT and HybTP the HI was between 0.13 and 0.15. The cribriform plate was sufficiently covered by HybTP, VMAT, and 3D-CRT. The dose acceptance criteria for OARs were met by HT and HybTP. VMAT did not meet the criteria for lung ( D mean = right 10.4 Gy/left 10.2 Gy), 3D-CRT did not meet the criteria for eye lenses ( D max = right 32.3 Gy/left 33.1), and heart ( V 25 ≈44%) and IMRT did not meet the criteria for lung ( D mean = right 11.1 Gy/left 11.2 Gy) and eye lenses ( D max = right 12.2 Gy/left 13.1). HybTP meets all defined acceptance criteria and has proved to be a reasonable alternative for CSI. With HybTP that combines VMAT at the brain and heart with 3D-CRT posterior spinal fields (to spare lungs and kidneys), both appropriate coverage of the PTV and sparing of OAR can be achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical dosimetrySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207