Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26348663›Full record

Trial reportPhysics in medicine and biology2015

Atlas-guided prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning.

Yang Sheng, Taoran Li, You Zhang, W Robert Lee, Fang-Fang Yin, Yaorong Ge, Q Jackie Wu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Physics in medicine and biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Knowledge-based radiation treatment planning: A data-driven method survey.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yang ShengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Taoran LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
You ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
W Robert LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Fang-Fang YinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Yaorong GeDepartment of Software and Information Systems, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.
Q Jackie WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

Funding

Decision support for dose prescription in radiation treatment planningR21CA161389 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GE, YAORONG, WU, QINGRONG JACKIE · 2012 to 2013
$364k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA161389NCI NIH HHS R21CA161389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An atlas-based IMRT planning technique for prostate cancer was developed and evaluated. A multi-dose atlas was built based on the anatomy patterns of the patients, more specifically, the percent distance to the prostate and the concaveness angle formed by the seminal vesicles relative to the anterior-posterior axis. A 70-case dataset was classified using a k-medoids clustering analysis to recognize anatomy pattern variations in the dataset. The best classification, defined by the number of classes or medoids, was determined by the largest value of the average silhouette width. Reference plans from each class formed a multi-dose atlas. The atlas-guided planning (AGP) technique started with matching the new case anatomy pattern to one of the reference cases in the atlas; then a deformable registration between the atlas and new case anatomies transferred the dose from the atlas to the new case to guide inverse planning with full automation. 20 additional clinical cases were re-planned to evaluate the AGP technique. Dosimetric properties between AGP and clinical plans were evaluated. The classification analysis determined that the 5-case atlas would best represent anatomy patterns for the patient cohort. AGP took approximately 1 min on average (corresponding to 70 iterations of optimization) for all cases. When dosimetric parameters were compared, the differences between AGP and clinical plans were less than 3.5%, albeit some statistical significances observed: homogeneity index (p  >  0.05), conformity index (p  <  0.01), bladder gEUD (p  <  0.01), and rectum gEUD (p  =  0.02). Atlas-guided treatment planning is feasible and efficient. Atlas predicted dose can effectively guide the optimizer to achieve plan quality comparable to that of clinical plans.

Indexed as

Anatomy, ArtisticAtlases as TopicAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMalePattern Recognition, AutomatedProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectumRetrospective StudiesSeminal VesiclesTomography, X-Ray ComputedUrinary Bladder

Identifiers

PMID26348663
PMCPMC4605424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.