MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414904254 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ae107b

Translating FLASH to the clinic: treatment planning system for a FLASH-compatible dose delivery using a novel x-ray UHDR machine

2025· article· en· W4414904254 on OpenAlexaff
deae-eddine Krim, Brendan Whelan, M. Harkness, Karl F. Otto, Billy W. Loo, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsocenterRadiation treatment planningLinear particle acceleratorDose rateDose profileMonte Carlo methodBeam (structure)Conical surface

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. To develop and validate a treatment planning system (TPS) for a novel x-ray ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) system and compare its performance with conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Approach. A TPS was developed for a novel x-ray UHDR system featuring stationary beamlines and a Scanning Pencil-beam High-speed Intensity-modulated x-ray source (SPHINX). We studied an exemplary case using 16 beam angles, 1D scanning perpendicular to the bore axis, and a linear accelerator operating at 12 MeV electron energy with 1 mA average beam current. Treatment plans were generated using various system configurations and compared with clinical VMAT plans for lung (PTV: 239 cm 3 ), brain (PTV: 372 cm 3 ), and head-and-neck (PTV: 55 cm 3 ) cases. Configurations included different beamlet widths for lung cancer, coplanar and conical beam arrangements for brain cancer, and different beamlet spacings for head-and-neck cancer. Dose distributions in terms of target conformity and homogeneity indices, local dose rates (LDR), local irradiation time (LIT), and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared. A validation workflow combining Monte Carlo simulations with TPS-generated treatment parameters was developed and tested on a lung case to ensure TPS dose calculation accuracy. Main results. TPS-generated plans achieved comparable target coverage to VMAT while delivering significantly higher dose rates ( ⩾ 12.5 Gy/s vs. 0.03 Gy/s) and ultra-short LITs. However, UHDR plans in general showed increased OAR mean doses. Conical beam arrangements in the brain case yielded higher maximum LDRs at isocenter of up to 49 Gy/s with LITs as low as 37 ms, but increased integral dose. The head-and-neck case demonstrated high LDRs (62 Gy/s to 98% of PTV) within 20 ms, with minimal differences between beamlet spacing configurations. The lung case validation workflow demonstrated ⩾ 98 % 3D γ-index pass rate using 3 % / 3 mm threshold, confirming plan accuracy. Significance. The developed UHDR-TPS enables treatment planning for a novel x-ray UHDR system. In this preliminary study, it achieved plan quality comparable to VMAT for the specific lung, brain, and head-and-neck cancer cases studied, while delivering significantly higher dose rates and shorter irradiation times. Further optimization of the UHDR delivery with x-rays is needed, however, to decrease OAR doses and validate these initial findings.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→