Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34808228›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2022

Deep learning-based GTV contouring modeling inter- and intra- observer variability in sarcomas.

Thibault Marin, Yue Zhuo, Rita Maria Lahoud, Fei Tian, Xiaoyue Ma, Fangxu Xing, Maryam Moteabbed, Xiaofeng Liu, Kira Grogg, Nadya Shusharina and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The role ofRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

15 authors.

Thibault MarinGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Yue ZhuoGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Rita Maria LahoudGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Fei TianGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Xiaoyue MaGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Fangxu XingGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Maryam MoteabbedGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Xiaofeng LiuGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Kira GroggGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Nadya ShusharinaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Jonghye WooGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Ruth LimGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Chao MaGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Yen-Lin E ChenGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
Georges El FakhriGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States. Electronic address: elfakhri.georges@mgh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Unified Joint Statistical Reconstruction of PET & MRP41EB022544 · NIBIB · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Kira Grogg · 2017 to 2026
$14.8M
Quantitative Oncologic PET-MRR01CA165221 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI EL FAKHRI, GEORGES · 2012 to 2023
$4.7M
Postgraduate Training Program in Medical Imaging (PTPMI)T32EB013180 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Ciprian Catana, Pedram Heidari · 2011 to 2026
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA165221NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB022544NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB013180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe delineation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) is a critical step for radiation therapy treatment planning. The delineation procedure is typically performed manually which exposes two major issues: cost and reproducibility. Delineation is a time-consuming process that is subject to inter- and intra-observer variability. While methods have been proposed to predict GTV contours, typical approaches ignore variability and therefore fail to utilize the valuable confidence information offered by multiple contours. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this work we propose an automatic GTV contouring method for soft-tissue sarcomas from X-ray computed tomography (CT) images, using deep learning by integrating inter- and intra-observer variability in the learned model. Sixty-eight patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas were considered in this evaluation, all underwent pre-operative CT imaging used to perform GTV delineation. Four radiation oncologists and radiologists performed three contouring trials each for all patients. We quantify variability by defining confidence levels based on the frequency of inclusion of a given voxel into the GTV and use a deep convolutional neural network to learn GTV confidence maps.

resultsResults were compared to confidence maps from the four readers as well as ground-truth consensus contours established jointly by all readers. The resulting continuous Dice score between predicted and true confidence maps was 87% and the Hausdorff distance was 14 mm.

conclusionResults demonstrate the ability of the proposed method to predict accurate contours while utilizing variability and as such it can be used to improve clinical workflow.

Indexed as

Deep LearningSarcomaSoft Tissue NeoplasmsHumansObserver VariationRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsComputer-assistedDeep learningRadiotherapy planningSarcoma

Identifiers

PMID34808228
PMCPMC8934266

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.