Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33340391›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

Feasibility of automated planning for whole-brain radiation therapy using deep learning.

Jesang Yu, Youngmoon Goh, Kye Jin Song, Jungwon Kwak, Byungchul Cho, Su San Kim, Sang-Wook Lee, Eun Kyung Choi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Automated treatment planning for brain and spinal metastases.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Automated field-in-field whole brain radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023
    Article
  8. A Survey on Deep Learning for Precision Oncology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jesang YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Youngmoon GohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kye Jin SongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jungwon KwakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Byungchul ChoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Su San KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Wook LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Kyung ChoiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Asan Medical Center · KR

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea 2020OK9126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to develop automated planning for whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) using a U-net-based deep-learning model for predicting the multileaf collimator (MLC) shape bypassing the contouring processes.

methodsA dataset of 55 cases, including 40 training sets, five validation sets, and 10 test sets, was used to predict the static MLC shape. The digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) reconstructed from planning CT images as an input layer and the MLC shape as an output layer are connected one-to-one via the U-net modeling. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used as the loss function in the training and ninefold cross-validation. Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) curves were constructed for assessing the automatic MLC shaping performance. Deep-learning (DL) and manually optimized (MO) approaches were compared based on the DVH curves and dose distributions.

resultsThe ninefold cross-validation ensemble test results were consistent with DSC values of 94.6 ± 0.4 and 94.7 ± 0.9 in training and validation learnings, respectively. The dose coverages of 95% target volume were (98.0 ± 0.7)% and (98.3 ± 0.8)%, and the maximum doses for the lens as critical organ-at-risk were 2.9 Gy and 3.9 Gy for DL and MO, respectively. The DL technique shows the consistent results in terms of the DVH parameter except for MLC shaping prediction for dose saving of small organs such as lens.

conclusionsComparable with the MO plan result, the WBRT plan quality obtained using the DL approach is clinically acceptable. Moreover, the DL approach enables WBRT auto-planning without the time-consuming manual MLC shaping and target contouring.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningBrainCranial IrradiationFeasibility StudiesHumansRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedautomatic planningdeep learningwhole-brain radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID33340391
PMCPMC7856520
OpenAlexW3113405186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.