Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30367492›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2019

A feasibility study on an automated method to generate patient-specific dose distributions for radiotherapy using deep learning.

Xinyuan Chen, Kuo Men, Yexiong Li, Junlin Yi, Jianrong Dai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Xinyuan ChenNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Kuo MenNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yexiong LiNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Junlin YiNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jianrong DaiNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.

Funding

Cancer Foundation of China LC2015B06National Key Projects of Research and Development of China 2016YFC0904600National Key Projects of Research and Development of China 2017YFC0107500National Natural Science Foundation of China 11275270National Natural Science Foundation of China 11605291
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a method for predicting optimal dose distributions, given the planning image and segmented anatomy, by applying deep learning techniques to a database of previously optimized and approved Intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans.

methodsEighty cases of early-stage nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) were included in the study. Seventy cases were chosen randomly as the training set and the remaining as the test set. The inputs were the images with structures, with each target and organs at risk (OARs) assigned a unique label. The outputs were dose maps, including coarse dose maps and converted fine dose maps (FDM) from convolution. Two types of input images with structures were used in the model building. One type of input included the images (with associated structures) without manipulation. The second type of input involved modifying the image gray label with information from radiation beam geometry. ResNet101 was chosen as the deep learning network for both. The accuracy of predicted dose distributions was evaluated against the corresponding dose as used in the clinic. A global three-dimensional gamma analysis was calculated for the evaluation.

resultsThe proposed model trained with the two different sets of input images and structures could both predict patient-specific dose distributions accurately. For the out-of-field dose distributions, the model obtained from the input with radiation geometry performed better (dose difference in %, 4.7 ± 6.1% vs 5.5 ± 7.9%, P < 0.05). The mean Gamma pass rates of dose distributions predicted with both types of input were comparable for most OARs (P > 0.05), except for the bilateral optic nerves and the optic chiasm.

conclusionsThe proposed system with radiation geometry added to the input is a promising method to generate patient-specific dose distributions for radiotherapy. It can be applied to obtain the dose distributions slice-by-slice for planning quality assurance and for guiding automated planning.

Indexed as

Deep LearningRadiation DosageAutomationFeasibility StudiesHumansNeural Networks, ComputerRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedautomaticdeep learningdose predictionradiotherapytreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID30367492
PMCPMC7379709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.