169Yb-based high dose rate intensity modulated brachytherapy for focal treatment of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE This study compares conventional 192 Ir-based high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) with 169 Yb-based HDR intensity modulated brachytherapy (IMBT) for focal prostate cancer treatment. Additionally, the study explores the potential to generate less invasive treatment plans with IMBT by reducing the number of catheters needed to achieve acceptable outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS A retrospective dosimetric study of ten prostate cancer patients initially treated with conventional 192 Ir-based HDR-BT and 5-14 catheters was employed. RapidBrachyMCTPS, a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system was used to calculate and optimize dose distributions. For 169 Yb-based HDR IMBT, a custom 169 Yb source combined with 0.8 mm thick platinum shields placed inside 6F catheters was used. Furthermore, dose distributions were investigated when iteratively removing catheters for less invasive treatments. RESULTS With IMBT, the urethra D 10 and D 0.1cc decreased on average by 15.89 and 15.65 percentage points (pp) and the rectum V 75 and D 2cc by 1.53 and 11.54 pp, respectively, compared to the conventional clinical plans. Similar trends were observed when the number of catheters decreased. On average, there was an observed increase in PTV V 150 from 2.84 pp with IMBT when utilizing all catheters to 8.83 pp when four catheters were removed. PTV V 200 increased from 0.42 to 2.96 pp on average. Hotspots in the body were however lower with IMBT compared to conventional clinical plans. CONCLUSIONS 169 Yb-based HDR IMBT for focal treatment of prostate cancer has the potential to successfully deliver clinically acceptable, less invasive treatment with reduced dose to organs at risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".