Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33305095›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

An Automated Workflow to Improve Efficiency in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning by Prioritizing Organs at Risk.

Eric Aliotta, Hamidreza Nourzadeh, Wookjin Choi, Victor Gabriel Leandro Alves, Jeffrey V Siebers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Surgery.Otolaryngologic clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Eric AliottaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Hamidreza NourzadehDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Wookjin ChoiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Victor Gabriel Leandro AlvesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Jeffrey V SiebersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Funding

Comprehensive analysis and mitigation of the clinical effects of delineation and geometric uncertainties in conformal radiation therapyR01CA222216 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI SIEBERS, JEFFREY VINCENT · 2018 to 2023
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA222216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeManual delineation (MD) of organs at risk (OAR) is time and labor intensive. Auto-delineation (AD) can reduce the need for MD, but because current algorithms are imperfect, manual review and modification is still typically used. Recognizing that many OARs are sufficiently far from important dose levels that they do not pose a realistic risk, we hypothesize that some OARs can be excluded from MD and manual review with no clinical effect. The purpose of this study was to develop a method that automatically identifies these OARs and enables more efficient workflows that incorporate AD without degrading clinical quality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Preliminary dose map estimates were generated for n = 10 patients with head and neck cancers using only prescription and target-volume information. Conservative estimates of clinical OAR objectives were computed using AD structures with spatial expansion buffers to account for potential delineation uncertainties. OARs with estimated dose metrics below clinical tolerances were deemed low priority and excluded from MD and/or manual review. Final plans were then optimized using high-priority MD OARs and low-priority AD OARs and compared with reference plans generated using all MD OARs. Multiple different spatial buffers were used to accommodate different potential delineation uncertainties.

resultsSixty-seven out of 201 total OARs were identified as low-priority using the proposed methodology, which permitted a 33% reduction in structures requiring manual delineation/review. Plans optimized using low-priority AD OARs without review or modification met all planning objectives that were met when all MD OARs were used, indicating clinical equivalence.

conclusionsPrioritizing OARs using estimated dose distributions allowed a substantial reduction in required MD and review without affecting clinically relevant dosimetry.

Identifiers

PMID33305095
PMCPMC7718498

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.