MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408271154 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.02.045

Direct-to-Treatment Adaptive Radiation Therapy: Live Planning of Spine Metastases Using Novel Cone Beam Computed Tomography

2025· article· en· W4408271154 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn M. McGrath, R. Lee MacDonald, James L. Robar, Amanda Cherpak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Cancer CentreDalhousie University
FundersVarian Medical Systems
KeywordsSPINE (molecular biology)Radiation therapyMedicineRadiologyMedical physicsBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based online adaptive radiation therapy is carried out using a synthetic CT (sCT) created through deformable registration between the patient-specific fan-beam CT, fan-beam computed tomography (FBCT), and daily CBCT. Ethos 2.0 allows for plan calculation directly on HyperSight CBCT and uses artificial intelligence-informed tools for daily contouring without the use of a priori information. This breaks an important link between daily adaptive sessions and initial reference plan preparation. This study explores adaptive radiation therapy for spine metastases without prior patient-specific imaging or treatment planning. We hypothesize that adaptive plans can be created when patient-specific positioning and anatomy is incorporated only once the patient has arrived at the treatment unit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An Ethos 2.0 emulator was used to create initial reference plans on 10 patient-specific FBCTs. Reference plans were also created using FBCTs of (1) a library patient with clinically acceptable contours and (2) a water-equivalent phantom with placeholder contours. Adaptive sessions were simulated for each patient using the 3 different starting points. Resulting adaptive plans were compared with determine the significance of patient-specific information prior to the start of treatment. RESULTS: The library patient and phantom reference plans did not generate adaptive plans that differed significantly from the standard workflow for all clinical constraints for target coverage and organ at risk sparing (P > .2). Gamma comparison between the 3 adaptive plans for each patient (3%/3 mm) demonstrated overall similarity of dose distributions (pass rate > 95%), for all but 2 cases. Failures occurred mainly in low-dose regions, highlighting difference in fluence used to achieve the same clinical goals. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed feasibility of a procedure for treatment of spine metastases that does not rely on previously acquired patient-specific imaging, contours or plan. Reference-free direct-to-treatment workflows are possible and can condense a multistep process to a single location with dedicated resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.358
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207