Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34585026›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Robustness and Generalizability of Deep Learning Synthetic Computed Tomography for Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Radiation Therapy Planning of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

Anders B Olin, Christopher Thomas, Adam E Hansen, Jacob H Rasmussen, Georgios Krokos, Teresa Guerrero Urbano, Andriana Michaelidou, Björn Jakoby, Claes N Ladefoged, Anne K Berthelsen and 6 more

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

16 authors.

Anders B OlinDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christopher ThomasDepartment of Medical Physics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Adam E HansenDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jacob H RasmussenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Georgios KrokosKing's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' PET Centre, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom.
Teresa Guerrero UrbanoDepartment of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Andriana MichaelidouDepartment of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Björn JakobySiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Claes N LadefogedDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne K BerthelsenDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Katrin HåkanssonDepartment of Oncology, Section of Radiotherapy, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ivan R VogeliusDepartment of Oncology, Section of Radiotherapy, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lena SpechtFaculty of Health and Medical Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sally F BarringtonKing's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' PET Centre, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom.
Flemming L AndersenDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Barbara M FischerDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRadiotherapy planning based only on positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) lacks computed tomography (CT) information required for dose calculations. In this study, a previously developed deep learning model for creating synthetic CT (sCT) from MRI in patients with head and neck cancer was evaluated in 2 scenarios: (1) using an independent external dataset, and (2) using a local dataset after an update of the model related to scanner software-induced changes to the input MRI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Six patients from an external site and 17 patients from a local cohort were analyzed separately. Each patient underwent a CT and a PET/MRI with a Dixon MRI sequence over either one (external) or 2 (local) bed positions. For the external cohort, a previously developed deep learning model for deriving sCT from Dixon MRI was directly applied. For the local cohort, we adapted the model for an upgraded MRI acquisition using transfer learning and evaluated it in a leave-one-out process. The sCT mean absolute error for each patient was assessed. Radiotherapy dose plans based on sCT and CT were compared by assessing relevant absorbed dose differences in target volumes and organs at risk.

resultsThe MAEs were 78 ± 13 HU and 76 ± 12 HU for the external and local cohort, respectively. For the external cohort, absorbed dose differences in target volumes were within ± 2.3% and within ± 1% in 95% of the cases. Differences in organs at risk were <2%. Similar results were obtained for the local cohort.

conclusionsWe have demonstrated a robust performance of a deep learning model for deriving sCT from MRI when applied to an independent external dataset. We updated the model to accommodate a larger axial field of view and software-induced changes to the input MRI. In both scenarios dose calculations based on sCT were similar to those of CT suggesting a robust and reliable method.

Identifiers

PMID34585026
PMCPMC8452789

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.