Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33905558›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2021

Deep cross-modality (MR-CT) educed distillation learning for cone beam CT lung tumor segmentation.

Jue Jiang, Sadegh Riyahi Alam, Ishita Chen, Perry Zhang, Andreas Rimner, Joseph O Deasy, Harini Veeraraghavan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Topological data analysis visualization for interpretable assessment of AI contouring quality.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026
    Article
  4. Artificial intelligence for treatment delivery: image-guided radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Jue JiangDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.
Sadegh Riyahi AlamDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.
Ishita ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.
Perry ZhangDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.
Andreas RimnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.
Joseph O DeasyDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.
Harini VeeraraghavanDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 1006, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4054-5529

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Dose-distribution radiomics to predict morbidity risk in radiotherapyR01CA198121 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI DEASY, JOSEPH O · 2016 to 2019
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA198121NCI NIH HHS R01-CA198121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite the widespread availability of in-treatment room cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging, due to the lack of reliable segmentation methods, CBCT is only used for gross set up corrections in lung radiotherapies. Accurate and reliable auto-segmentation tools could potentiate volumetric response assessment and geometry-guided adaptive radiation therapies. Therefore, we developed a new deep learning CBCT lung tumor segmentation method.

methodsThe key idea of our approach called cross-modality educed distillation (CMEDL) is to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide a CBCT segmentation network training to extract more informative features during training. We accomplish this by training an end-to-end network comprised of unpaired domain adaptation (UDA) and cross-domain segmentation distillation networks (SDNs) using unpaired CBCT and MRI datasets. UDA approach uses CBCT and MRI that are not aligned and may arise from different sets of patients. The UDA network synthesizes pseudo MRI from CBCT images. The SDN consists of teacher MRI and student CBCT segmentation networks. Feature distillation regularizes the student network to extract CBCT features that match the statistical distribution of MRI features extracted by the teacher network and obtain better differentiation of tumor from background. The UDA network was implemented with a cycleGAN improved with contextual losses separately on Unet and dense fully convolutional segmentation networks (DenseFCN). Performance comparisons were done against CBCT only using 2D and 3D networks. We also compared against an alternative framework that used UDA with MR segmentation network, whereby segmentation was done on the synthesized pseudo MRI representation. All networks were trained with 216 weekly CBCTs and 82 T2-weighted turbo spin echo MRI acquired from different patient cohorts. Validation was done on 20 weekly CBCTs from patients not used in training. Independent testing was done on 38 weekly CBCTs from patients not used in training or validation. Segmentation accuracy was measured using surface Dice similarity coefficient (SDSC) and Hausdroff distance at 95th percentile (HD95) metrics.

resultsThe CMEDL approach significantly improved (p < 0.001) the accuracy of both Unet (SDSC of 0.83 ± 0.08; HD95 of 7.69 ± 7.86 mm) and DenseFCN (SDSC of 0.75 ± 0.13; HD95 of 11.42 ± 9.87 mm) over CBCT only 2DUnet (SDSC of 0.69 ± 0.11; HD95 of 21.70 ± 16.34 mm), 3D Unet (SDSC of 0.72 ± 0.20; HD95 15.01 ± 12.98 mm), and DenseFCN (SDSC of 0.66 ± 0.15; HD95 of 22.15 ± 17.19 mm) networks. The alternate framework using UDA with the MRI network was also more accurate than the CBCT only methods but less accurate the CMEDL approach.

conclusionsOur results demonstrate feasibility of the introduced CMEDL approach to produce reasonably accurate lung cancer segmentation from CBCT images. Further validation on larger datasets is necessary for clinical translation.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLung NeoplasmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance Imagingadversarial deep learningCBCT segmentationdistillation learninglung tumorsMR informed segmentation

Identifiers

PMID33905558
PMCPMC9662709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.