Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Purpose: Lattice radiation therapy (LRT) is a promising approach for treating bulky tumors; however, current methods do not consider patient-specific tumor heterogeneity. Low apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) regions, identified via diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, correspond to areas of high cellular density and radioresistance. Targeted dose escalation in these regions may enhance tumor control. Thus, we propose biologically guided lattice radiation therapy (BG-LRT), which optimizes lattice positioning based on the ADC map.
Methods And Materials: We retrospectively analyzed 20 patients with bulky tumors (>6 cm) who underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and simulation computed tomography within 3 days. BG-LRT plans were created by aligning high-dose lattice regions with low-ADC areas and comparing them with hexagonal close-packed-LRT (HCP-LRT). Both techniques prescribed 60 Gy in lattice regions and 20 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) over 5 fractions. The dosimetric evaluation included the peak-valley dose ratio (PVDR) and ablation dose ratio (ADR) within the GTV as well as dose distribution in ADC-defined tumor subregions (R_ADC10 to R_ADC50) and organs at risk (OARs).
Results: BG-LRT achieved a higher PVDR (2.7 vs 2.4) and ADR (2.6% vs 1.7%) than HCP-LRT. ADR values across all ADC-defined tumor subregions (R_ADC10 to R_ADC50) were significantly higher for BG-LRT. OAR doses were comparable between methods, with no significant differences in mean dose (D) to the heart, stomach, esophagus, kidneys, liver, and duodenum as well as the maximum doses (D) to the lens, eye, optic nerve, brainstem, and optic chiasm. Planning time, delivery time, monitor units, and gamma pass rates were similar between techniques.
Conclusions: BG-LRT improves PVDR and ADR in the GTV while focusing on dose escalation in biologically relevant tumor regions. This technique maintains low OAR doses and represents a promising step toward personalized LRT treatment planning.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.06.3901 | DOI Listing |