The use of dose surface maps as a tool to investigate spatial dose delivery accuracy for the rectum during prostate radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to address the lack of spatial dose comparisons of planned and delivered rectal doses during prostate radiotherapy by using dose-surface maps (DSMs) to analyze dose delivery accuracy and comparing these results to those derived using DVHs. METHODS: Two independent cohorts were used in this study: twenty patients treated with 36.25 Gy in five fractions (SBRT) and 20 treated with 60 Gy in 20 fractions (IMRT). Daily delivered rectum doses for each patient were retrospectively calculated using daily CBCT images. For each cohort, planned and average-delivered DVHs were generated and compared, as were planned and accumulated DSMs. Permutation testing was used to identify DVH metrics and DSM regions where significant dose differences occurred. Changes in rectal volume and position between planning and delivery were also evaluated to determine possible correlation to dosimetric changes. RESULTS: For both cohorts, DVHs and DSMs reported conflicting findings on how planned and delivered rectum doses differed from each other. DVH analysis determined average-delivered DVHs were on average 7.1% ± 7.6% (p ≤ 0.002) and 5.0 ± 7.4% (p ≤ 0.021) higher than planned for the IMRT and SBRT cohorts, respectively. Meanwhile, DSM analysis found average delivered posterior rectal wall dose was 3.8 ± 0.6 Gy (p = 0.014) lower than planned in the IMRT cohort and no significant dose differences in the SBRT cohort. Observed dose differences were moderately correlated with anterior-posterior rectal wall motion, as well as PTV superior-inferior motion in the IMRT cohort. Evidence of both these relationships were discernable in DSMs. CONCLUSION: DSMs enabled spatial investigations of planned and delivered doses can uncover associations with interfraction motion that are otherwise masked in DVHs. Investigations of dose delivery accuracy in radiotherapy may benefit from using DSMs over DVHs for certain organs such as the rectum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".