ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Can the Student Outperform the Master? A Plan Comparison Between Pinnacle Auto-Planning and Eclipse knowledge-Based RapidPlan Following a Prostate-Bed Plan Competition.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic implementation of rapidplan for prostate cancer: toward a unified knowledge-based planning model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing population-based to personalized planning strategies for head and neck adaptive radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A geometry and dose-volume based performance monitoring of artificial intelligence models in radiotherapy treatment planning for prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Feasibility and dosimetric evaluation of single- and multi-isocentre stereotactic body radiation therapy for multiple liver metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Assessment of efficacy in automated plan generation for Varian Ethos intelligent optimization engine.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022Article
- Knowledge-based radiation treatment planning: A data-driven method survey.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Review
- Article
- ACOSA: A Script-Based Algorithm for Multi-Disease Target Crop and Optimization in Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Radiotherapy Treatment Planning in the Age of AI: Are We Ready Yet?Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePinnacle Auto-Planning and Eclipse RapidPlan are 2 major commercial automated planning engines that are fundamentally different: Auto-Planning mimics real planners in the iterative optimization, while RapidPlan generates static dose objectives from estimations predicted based on a prior knowledge base. This study objectively compared their performances on intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for prostate fossa and lymphatics adopting the plan quality metric used in the 2011 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists Plan Challenge.
methodsAll plans used an identical intensity-modulated radiotherapy beam setup and a simultaneous integrated boost prescription (68 Gy/56 Gy to prostate fossa/lymphatics). Auto-Planning was used to retrospectively plan on 20 patients, which were subsequently employed as the library to build an RapidPlan model. To compare the 2 engines' performances, a test set including 10 patients and the Plan Challenge patient was planned by both Auto-Planning (master) and RapidPlan (student) without manual intervention except for a common dose normalization and evaluated using the plan quality metric that included 14 quantitative submetrics ranging over target coverage, spillage, and organ at risk doses. Plan quality metric scores were compared between the Auto-Planning and RapidPlan plans using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the overall performance of the 2 engines on the 11 test cases ( P = .509). Among the 14 submetrics, Auto-Planning and RapidPlan showed no significant difference on most submetrics except for 2. On the Plan Challenge case, Auto-Planning scored 129.9 and RapidPlan scored 130.3 out of 150, as compared with the average score of 116.9 ± 16.4 (range: 58.2-142.5) among the 125 Plan Challenge participants.
conclusionUsing an innovative study design, an objective comparison has been conducted between 2 major commercial automated inverse planning engines. The 2 engines performed comparably with each other and both yielded plans at par with average human planners. Using a constant-performing planner (Auto-Planning) to train and to compare, RapidPlan was found to yield plans no better than but as good as its library plans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.