MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415055619 · doi:10.1002/acm2.70306

Evaluating the Ethos automated planning system for spatially fractionated radiotherapy

2025· article· en· W4415055619 on OpenAlexaff
A Aziz Sait, SA Yoganathan, Amine Khemissi, Umang Patel, Sunil Mani, Satheesh Paloor, Rabih Hammoud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosRadiation treatment planningRadiation therapyRadiation doseTomotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Lattice radiotherapy (LRT), a form of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT), has emerged as a promising approach for treating massive tumors. By delivering high-dose regions within the tumor while sparing surrounding healthy tissue, LRT offers distinct advantages over conventional radiotherapy. Recent advancements in treatment planning systems (TPS), particularly the integration of intelligent optimization engines (IOEs) with automated planning capabilities, have the potential to further refine and expand the clinical utility of LRT. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the planning quality and clinical feasibility of lattice SFRT treatment plans generated using the Ethos planning system, equipped with an IOE and O-ring linear accelerator, versus the Eclipse planning system paired with a conventional C-arm TrueBeam linac, in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Twenty retrospective stage III NSCLC cases (GTV > 200 cc) with available PET-CT imaging were selected. A total of 40 plans (20 Eclipse, 20 Ethos) were compared, incorporating lattice spheres (1 cm diameter, 2 cm spacing between spheres) placed in the tumor, FDG-PET/CT-informed intratumoral heterogeneity, prioritizing viable perinecrotic subregions while avoiding critical OARs. Plans aimed to deliver 15 Gy to lattice spheres, limit Valley (PTV minus spheres) doses to 2 Gy, and restrict doses to organs at risk (OARs) to ≤ 3 Gy. Dose conformity, OAR sparing, dose gradient parameters (PEDR, PVDR), planning time, and deliverability, which was evaluated using ArcCheck, EPID gamma analysis, and MLC log-file verification. RESULTS: : 7.62 vs. 7.41). For the valley target, Ethos plans demonstrated a lower mean dose (Dmean: 4.72 Gy vs. 4.91 Gy, p = 0.064), although not statistically significant, and achieved significantly improved dose gradient at V7.5 Gy (14.5% vs. 16.35%, p = 0.019), V5Gy (30.77% vs. 34.84%, p = 0.006), and V2Gy (99.77% vs. 97.79%, p < 0.001) compared to Eclipse. Ethos achieved significantly better OAR sparing, particularly for the bronchial tree, heart, spinal cord, esophagus, and great vessels (all p < 0.01). Furthermore, Ethos substantially reduced planning time (36.55 vs. 95.96 min, p < 0.001). Both planning systems achieved high gamma passing rates (> 95%), confirming the accuracy and deliverability of the treatment plans. CONCLUSION: The Ethos automated treatment planning demonstrated superior lattice dose conformity, enhanced OAR sparing, and significantly faster optimization compared to Eclipse. This automated optimization capability highlights the potential of Ethos for efficient and effective lattice radiotherapy in managing massive NSCLC tumors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207