Applications of Advanced Imaging for Radiotherapy Planning and Response Assessment in the Central Nervous System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy for tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) could be improved by incorporating advanced imaging techniques into treatment planning and response assessment. The objective of this narrative review is to highlight the recent developments in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) for applications in CNS radiotherapy. METHODS: Recent articles were selected for discussion, covering the following topics: advanced imaging on MRI-linear accelerators for early response assessment in glioma; PET for guiding treatment planning and response assessment in glioma; and contrast-enhanced imaging and metabolic imaging for differentiating tumor progression and radiation necrosis for brain metastasis treatment. Where necessary, searches of scholarly databases (e.g., Google Scholar, PubMed) were used to find papers for each topic. The topics were chosen based on the perception of promise in advancing specific applications of CNS radiotherapy and not covered in detail elsewhere. This review is not intended to be comprehensive. RESULTS: Advanced MRI sequences and PET could have a substantial impact on CNS radiotherapy. For gliomas, the tumor response to therapy could be assessed much earlier than using the conventional technique of measuring changes in tumor size. Using advanced imaging on combined imaging/therapy devices like MR-Linacs would enable response monitoring throughout radiotherapy. For brain metastases, radiation necrosis and tumor progression might be reliably differentiated with imaging techniques sensitive to perfusion or metabolism. However, the lack of level 1 evidence supporting specific uses for each imaging technique is an impediment to widespread use. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced MRI and PET have great promise to change the standard of care for CNS radiotherapy, but clinical trials validating specific applications are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".