Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33075392›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2020

Development and validation of an age-scalable cardiac model with substructures for dosimetry in late-effects studies of childhood cancer survivors.

Suman Shrestha, Aashish C Gupta, James E Bates, Choonsik Lee, Constance A Owens, Bradford S Hoppe, Louis S Constine, Susan A Smith, Ying Qiao, Rita E Weathers and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Cancer Treatment-Related Cardiotoxicity among Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Comparative and Integrated View of Multiple Measures of Biological Age Acceleration.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Development and validation of a population-based anatomical colorectal model for radiation dosimetry in late effects studies of survivors of childhood cancer.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Radiation therapy related cardiac disease risk in childhood cancer survivors: Updated dosimetry analysis from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021
    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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Suman ShresthaDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States.
Aashish C GuptaDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States.
James E BatesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, United States.
Choonsik LeeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, United States.
Constance A OwensDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States.
Bradford S HoppeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, United States.
Louis S ConstineDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, United States.
Susan A SmithDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Ying QiaoDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Rita E WeathersDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Yutaka YasuiDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States.
Arnold C PaulinoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Chelsea C PinnixDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Stephen F KryDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States.
David S FollowillDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States.
Gregory T ArmstrongDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States.
Rebecca M HowellDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, United States. Electronic address: rhowell@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USEmory University · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USNational Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Viral Vector Technology (VVTSR)P30CA021765 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI CHARLES ROBERTS · 1985 to 2026
$166.9M
Mach-LETSGO: Machine-LEarning of Treatment, Survey, and Genetics towards Obtaining Correct Classification of Chronic Conditions in Adult Survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study - CCSS SupplU24CA055727 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Gregory Armstrong · 1999 to 2026
$96.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA021765NCI NIH HHS U24 CA055727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeRadiation therapy is a risk factor for late cardiac disease in childhood cancer survivors. Several pediatric cohort studies have established whole heart dose and dose-volume response models. Emerging data suggest that dose to cardiac substructures may be more predictive than whole heart metrics. In order to develop substructure dose-response models, the heart model previously used for pediatric cohort dosimetry needed enhancement and substructure delineation.

methodsTo enhance our heart model, we combined the age-scalable capability of our computational phantom with the anatomically-delineated (with substructures) heart models from an international humanoid phantom series. We examined cardiac volume similarity/overlap between registered age-scaled phantoms (1, 5, 10, and 15 years) with the enhanced heart model and the reference phantoms of the same age; dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and overlap coefficient (OC) were calculated for each matched pair. To assess the accuracy of our enhanced heart model, we compared doses from computed tomography-based planning (ground truth) with reconstructed heart doses. We also compared doses calculated with the prior and enhanced heart models for a cohort of nearly 5000 childhood cancer survivors.

resultsWe developed a realistic cardiac model with 14-substructures, scalable across a broad age range (1-15 years); average DSC and OC were 0.84 ± 0.05 and 0.90 ± 0.05, respectively. The average percent difference between reconstructed and ground truth mean heart doses was 4.2%. In the cohort dosimetry analysis, dose and dose-volume metrics were approximately 10% lower on average when the enhanced heart model was used for dose reconstructions.

conclusionWe successfully developed and validated an anatomically realistic age-scalable cardiac model that can be used to establish substructure dose-response models for late cardiac disease in childhood cancer survivor cohorts.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolHeartHumansInfantPhantoms, ImagingRadiometryCardiac toxicityChildhood cancerComputational phantomLate effectsRadiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID33075392
PMCPMC8132170
OpenAlexW3093118687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.