TU-AB-201-01: A Comprehensive Planning Comparison Study Between a Novel Direction Modulated Brachytherapy Tandem Applicator and Conventional T&R Applicator for Image Guided Cervical Cancer Brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To demonstrate that utilization of a novel, intensity modulation capable, direction modulated brachytherapy (DMBT) tandem applicator can improve plan quality compared with conventional T&R applicator during an image guided cervical cancer brachytherapy. Methods: 45 cervical cancer patients treated with PDR brachytherapy were reviewed. Of them, a) 27 were treated using T&R only, b) 9 were treated using T&R with needles attached to the ring, and c) the remaining 9 were treated using T&R with needles attached to the ring (AN) as well as additional free-hand-loaded needles (FN). The DMBT tandem design has 6 peripheral holes of 1.3-mm diameter, grooved along a nonmagnetic tungsten alloy rod, enclosed in a plastic sheath with total 6.0-mm diameter. An in-house-coded inverse planning system was used for planning DMBT and T&R cases. All typical clinical constraints including OAR dose limits, dwell times, and loading patterns were respected. For the DMBT and T&R applicators, the plans were optimized with the same conventional ring in place, but repeatedly planned with and without AN/FN needles. All generated plans were normalized to the same D90 of the clinically treated plans. Results: For the plans in category a), DMBT generally outperformed T&R with average reduction in D2cc of −2.39%, −5.21%, and −2.69% for bladder, rectum, and sigmoid, respectively. For the plans in category b) and c), DMBT generally outperformed T&R if the same needles in AN/FN were utilized in both cases with average reduction in D2cc of −1.82%, −3.40%, and −6.04%, respectively. For the cases where the needles were not utilized for both applicators, an average D2cc reduction of −7.45%, −7.61%, and 17.47% were observed, respectively. Conclusions: Under the same clinical conditions, with/without needles, the DMBT applicator tends to generate more favorable plans compared with the conventional T&R applicator, and hence, is a promising technology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".