A comparative dosimetric evaluation of dynamic conformal arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses the viability of utilizing dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) as an alternative to volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung cancer, with a focus on four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) in free-breathing conditions. We selected four non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who had previously undergone VMAT SBRT and re-planned their treatment using DCAT. We compared the DCAT and VMAT plans based on dose distribution, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), and total monitor units (MUs). Quality assurance (QA) assessments for both plans were conducted using the Octavius 4D system (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). The results showed that CI Paddick was 0.80 ± 0.06 and 0.79 ± 0.04 (p-value >0.05), HI was 1.16 ± 0.03 (p-value <0.05) and 1.07 ± 0.02, GI was 3.91 ± 0.05 and 3.40 ± 0.05 (p-value <0.05), and MU was 1880.42 ± 135.19 and 5020.82 ± 188.03 for DCAT and VMAT, respectively (p-value <0.05). The average gamma passing rate exceeded 95 % with a 2 %/2 mm criteria. The dose distribution displayed remarkable similarity between DCAT and VMAT. The DCAT technique exhibits the capacity to deliver PTV dose distributions comparable to those achieved with VMAT, while significantly reducing treatment duration.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it