Impact of ovary-sparing treatment planning on plan quality, treatment time and gamma passing rates in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for stage I/II cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the impact of ovary-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on plan quality, treatment time, and gamma passing rates for stage I/II cervical cancer patients. METHODS: Fifteen stage I/II cervical cancer patients were retrospectively enrolled, and a pair of clinically suitable IMRT plans were designed for each patient, with (Group A) and without (Group B) ovary-sparing. Plan factors affecting plan quality, treatment time, and gamma passing rates, including the number of segments, monitor units, percentage of small-area segments (field area < 20 cm2), and percentage of small-MU segments (MU < 10), were compared and statistically analyzed. Key plan quality indicators, including ovarian dose, target dose coverage (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2%), conformity index, and homogeneity index, were evaluated and statistically assessed. Treatment time and gamma passing rates collected by IBA MatriXX were also compared. RESULTS: The median ovarian dose in Group A and Group B was 7.61 Gy (range 6.71-8.51 Gy) and 38.52 Gy (range 29.84-43.82 Gy), respectively. Except for monitor units, all other plan factors were significantly lower in Group A than in Group B (all P < .05). Correlation coefficients between plan factors, treatment time, and gamma passing rates that were statistically different were all negative. Both Groups of plans met the prescription requirement (D95% ≥ 45.00 Gy) for clinical treatment. D98% was smaller for Group A than for Group B (P < .05); D50% and D2% were larger for Group A than for Group B (P < .05, P < .05). Group A plans had worse conformity index and homogeneity index than Group B plans (P < .05, P < .05). Treatment time did not differ significantly (P > .05). Gamma passing rates in Group A were higher than in Group B with the criteria of 2%/3 mm (P < .05) and 3%/2 mm (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite the slightly decreased quality of the treatment plans, the ovary-sparing IMRT plans exhibited several advantages including lower ovarian dose and plan complexity, improved gamma passing rates, and a negligible impact on treatment time.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".