Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33827619›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

Clinical validation of a commercially available deep learning software for synthetic CT generation for brain.

Minna Lerner, Joakim Medin, Christian Jamtheim Gustafsson, Sara Alkner, Carl Siversson, Lars E Olsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Deep Learning for CT Synthesis in Radiotherapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Towards MR contrast independent synthetic CT generation.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Minna LernerRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. Minna.Lerner@skane.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-4874
Joakim MedinRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Christian Jamtheim GustafssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Sara AlknerDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund, Oncology and Pathology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Carl SiverssonSpectronic Medical AB, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Lars E OlssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

Eurostars programme of the European Commision E! 12326 ILLUMINUSVINNOVA 2016-02529 and 2016-03847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost studies on synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generation for brain rely on in-house developed methods. They often focus on performance rather than clinical feasibility. Therefore, the aim of this work was to validate sCT images generated using a commercially available software, based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm, to enable MRI-only treatment planning for the brain in a clinical setting.

methodsThis prospective study included 20 patients with brain malignancies of which 14 had areas of resected skull bone due to surgery. A Dixon magnetic resonance (MR) acquisition sequence for sCT generation was added to the clinical brain MR-protocol. The corresponding sCT images were provided by the software MRI Planner (Spectronic Medical AB, Sweden). sCT images were rigidly registered and resampled to CT for each patient. Treatment plans were optimized on CT and recalculated on sCT images for evaluation of dosimetric and geometric endpoints. Further analysis was also performed for the post-surgical cases. Clinical robustness in patient setup verification was assessed by rigidly registering cone beam CT (CBCT) to sCT and CT images, respectively.

resultsAll sCT images were successfully generated. Areas of bone resection due to surgery were accurately depicted. Mean absolute error of the sCT images within the body contour for all patients was 62.2 ± 4.1 HU. Average absorbed dose differences were below 0.2% for parameters evaluated for both targets and organs at risk. Mean pass rate of global gamma (1%/1 mm) for all patients was 100.0 ± 0.0% within PTV and 99.1 ± 0.6% for the full dose distribution. No clinically relevant deviations were found in the CBCT-sCT vs CBCT-CT image registrations. In addition, mean values of voxel-wise patient specific geometric distortion in the Dixon images for sCT generation were below 0.1 mm for soft tissue, and below 0.2 mm for air and bone.

conclusionsThis work successfully validated a commercially available CNN-based software for sCT generation. Results were comparable for sCT and CT images in both dosimetric and geometric evaluation, for both patients with and without anatomical anomalies. Thus, MRI Planner is feasible to use for radiotherapy treatment planning of brain tumours.

Indexed as

Deep LearningSoftwareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrainBrain NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedBrainBrain metastasesGliomaMRI-onlyRadiotherapySynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID33827619
PMCPMC8025544

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.