Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33252691›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Evaluation of Deep Learning to Augment Image-Guided Radiotherapy for Head and Neck and Prostate Cancers.

Ozan Oktay, Jay Nanavati, Anton Schwaighofer, David Carter, Melissa Bristow, Ryutaro Tanno, Rajesh Jena, Gill Barnett, David Noble, Yvonne Rimmer and 5 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Deep learning [Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Clinical Evaluation of Deep Learning for Tumor Delineation onJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ozan OktayHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jay NanavatiHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Anton SchwaighoferHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
David CarterHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Melissa BristowHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ryutaro TannoHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Rajesh JenaHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Gill BarnettHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
David NobleDepartment of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Yvonne RimmerDepartment of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Ben GlockerHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kenton O'HaraHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Christopher BishopHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Javier Alvarez-ValleHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Aditya NoriHealth Intelligence, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Intel (United Kingdom) · GBMicrosoft Research (United Kingdom) · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13405Cancer Research UK 28870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Personalized radiotherapy planning depends on high-quality delineation of target tumors and surrounding organs at risk (OARs). This process puts additional time burdens on oncologists and introduces variability among both experts and institutions. Objective: To explore clinically acceptable autocontouring solutions that can be integrated into existing workflows and used in different domains of radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used a multicenter imaging data set comprising 519 pelvic and 242 head and neck computed tomography (CT) scans from 8 distinct clinical sites and patients diagnosed either with prostate or head and neck cancer. The scans were acquired as part of treatment dose planning from patients who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy between October 2013 and February 2020. Fifteen different OARs were manually annotated by expert readers and radiation oncologists. The models were trained on a subset of the data set to automatically delineate OARs and evaluated on both internal and external data sets. Data analysis was conducted October 2019 to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The autocontouring solution was evaluated on external data sets, and its accuracy was quantified with volumetric agreement and surface distance measures. Models were benchmarked against expert annotations in an interobserver variability (IOV) study. Clinical utility was evaluated by measuring time spent on manual corrections and annotations from scratch. Results: A total of 519 participants' (519 [100%] men; 390 [75%] aged 62-75 years) pelvic CT images and 242 participants' (184 [76%] men; 194 [80%] aged 50-73 years) head and neck CT images were included. The models achieved levels of clinical accuracy within the bounds of expert IOV for 13 of 15 structures (eg, left femur, κ = 0.982; brainstem, κ = 0.806) and performed consistently well across both external and internal data sets (eg, mean [SD] Dice score for left femur, internal vs external data sets: 98.52% [0.50] vs 98.04% [1.02]; P = .04). The correction time of autogenerated contours on 10 head and neck and 10 prostate scans was measured as a mean of 4.98 (95% CI, 4.44-5.52) min/scan and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.60-5.20) min/scan, respectively, to ensure clinically accepted accuracy. Manual segmentation of the head and neck took a mean 86.75 (95% CI, 75.21-92.29) min/scan for an expert reader and 73.25 (95% CI, 68.68-77.82) min/scan for a radiation oncologist. The autogenerated contours represented a 93% reduction in time. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the models achieved levels of clinical accuracy within expert IOV while reducing manual contouring time and performing consistently well across previously unseen heterogeneous data sets. With the availability of open-source libraries and reliable performance, this creates significant opportunities for the transformation of radiation treatment planning.

Indexed as

AgedDeep LearningHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerObserver VariationOrgans at RiskProstatic NeoplasmsQuality ImprovementRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID33252691
PMCPMC7705593
OpenAlexW3110403995

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.