针对非小细胞肺癌的侧向特异性规划模型和基于一般知识的规划模型的放射量比较。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Julia Seng, Kirk Luca, Justin Roper, Aparna H Kesarwala, Shadab Momin
{"title":"针对非小细胞肺癌的侧向特异性规划模型和基于一般知识的规划模型的放射量比较。","authors":"Julia Seng, Kirk Luca, Justin Roper, Aparna H Kesarwala, Shadab Momin","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2024.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate the dosimetric impact of laterality-specific RapidPlan models for nonsmall cell lung cancer. Three RapidPlan models were developed and validated for Right, Left, and General conventional lung radiotherapy. Each model was trained using 50 plans. The right and left models consisted of plans corresponding to their respective laterality. Twenty-five cases were randomly chosen from each laterality-specific model to craft a general model. All models shared identical optimization objectives and the same target and OAR structures. Validation included 13 right-sided and 13 left-sided cases optimized using each RapidPlan model without intervention and normalized such that the prescription dose covered 95% of the target volume. Statistical analysis using a paired sample t-test (p < 0.01) assessed dosimetric endpoints based on RTOG 0617 criteria. For right-sided cases, spinal cord Dmax and D0.03cc were lowest in the left model and highest in the right model (21.08 Gy and 21.22 Gy vs 23.67 Gy and 24.08 Gy). D<sub>max</sub> and D<sub>0.03cc</sub> esophagus mean dose was also lower in the left model compared to the right model (p < 0.01) for both left and right-sided cases. However, overall plan quality exhibited no substantial difference between general and laterality-specific models. Despite observing small but statistically significant differences, there is no discernible difference in plan quality between laterality-specific and general models, suggesting that a single RapidPlan model is sufficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric comparison between laterality-specific and general knowledge-based planning models for nonsmall cell lung cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Seng, Kirk Luca, Justin Roper, Aparna H Kesarwala, Shadab Momin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.meddos.2024.10.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To investigate the dosimetric impact of laterality-specific RapidPlan models for nonsmall cell lung cancer. Three RapidPlan models were developed and validated for Right, Left, and General conventional lung radiotherapy. Each model was trained using 50 plans. The right and left models consisted of plans corresponding to their respective laterality. Twenty-five cases were randomly chosen from each laterality-specific model to craft a general model. All models shared identical optimization objectives and the same target and OAR structures. Validation included 13 right-sided and 13 left-sided cases optimized using each RapidPlan model without intervention and normalized such that the prescription dose covered 95% of the target volume. Statistical analysis using a paired sample t-test (p < 0.01) assessed dosimetric endpoints based on RTOG 0617 criteria. For right-sided cases, spinal cord Dmax and D0.03cc were lowest in the left model and highest in the right model (21.08 Gy and 21.22 Gy vs 23.67 Gy and 24.08 Gy). D<sub>max</sub> and D<sub>0.03cc</sub> esophagus mean dose was also lower in the left model compared to the right model (p < 0.01) for both left and right-sided cases. However, overall plan quality exhibited no substantial difference between general and laterality-specific models. Despite observing small but statistically significant differences, there is no discernible difference in plan quality between laterality-specific and general models, suggesting that a single RapidPlan model is sufficient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Dosimetry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Dosimetry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2024.10.003\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2024.10.003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究针对非小细胞肺癌的侧向特定 RapidPlan 模型对剂量测定的影响。针对右肺、左肺和普通常规肺放疗,开发并验证了三种 RapidPlan 模型。每个模型使用 50 个计划进行训练。右侧和左侧模型包括与各自侧位相对应的计划。从每个侧位特定模型中随机选择 25 个病例来制作通用模型。所有模型都具有相同的优化目标以及相同的目标和 OAR 结构。验证包括 13 个右侧病例和 13 个左侧病例,使用每个 RapidPlan 模型进行优化,不进行干预,并进行归一化处理,使处方剂量覆盖目标体积的 95%。使用配对样本 t 检验(p < 0.01)进行统计分析,根据 RTOG 0617 标准评估剂量学终点。对于右侧病例,左侧模型的脊髓 Dmax 和 D0.03cc 最低,右侧模型最高(21.08 Gy 和 21.22 Gy vs 23.67 Gy 和 24.08 Gy)。在左侧和右侧病例中,左侧模型的 Dmax 和 D0.03cc 食管平均剂量也低于右侧模型(P < 0.01)。不过,总体计划质量在一般模型和侧向特异性模型之间没有实质性差异。尽管观察到的差异很小,但在统计学上却有显著意义,特定侧位模型和一般模型在计划质量上没有明显差异,这表明使用一个 RapidPlan 模型就足够了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dosimetric comparison between laterality-specific and general knowledge-based planning models for nonsmall cell lung cancer.

To investigate the dosimetric impact of laterality-specific RapidPlan models for nonsmall cell lung cancer. Three RapidPlan models were developed and validated for Right, Left, and General conventional lung radiotherapy. Each model was trained using 50 plans. The right and left models consisted of plans corresponding to their respective laterality. Twenty-five cases were randomly chosen from each laterality-specific model to craft a general model. All models shared identical optimization objectives and the same target and OAR structures. Validation included 13 right-sided and 13 left-sided cases optimized using each RapidPlan model without intervention and normalized such that the prescription dose covered 95% of the target volume. Statistical analysis using a paired sample t-test (p < 0.01) assessed dosimetric endpoints based on RTOG 0617 criteria. For right-sided cases, spinal cord Dmax and D0.03cc were lowest in the left model and highest in the right model (21.08 Gy and 21.22 Gy vs 23.67 Gy and 24.08 Gy). Dmax and D0.03cc esophagus mean dose was also lower in the left model compared to the right model (p < 0.01) for both left and right-sided cases. However, overall plan quality exhibited no substantial difference between general and laterality-specific models. Despite observing small but statistically significant differences, there is no discernible difference in plan quality between laterality-specific and general models, suggesting that a single RapidPlan model is sufficient.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Dosimetry
Medical Dosimetry 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Medical Dosimetry, the official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, is the key source of information on new developments for the medical dosimetrist. Practical and comprehensive in coverage, the journal features original contributions and review articles by medical dosimetrists, oncologists, physicists, and radiation therapy technologists on clinical applications and techniques of external beam, interstitial, intracavitary and intraluminal irradiation in cancer management. Articles dealing primarily with physics will be reviewed by a specially appointed team of experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信