Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35243030›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022

Clinical utility of convolutional neural networks for treatment planning in radiotherapy for spinal metastases.

Sebastiaan R S Arends, Mark H F Savenije, Wietse S C Eppinga, Joanne M van der Velden, Cornelis A T van den Berg, Joost J C Verhoeff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Sebastiaan R S ArendsDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mark H F SavenijeDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wietse S C EppingaDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joanne M van der VeldenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cornelis A T van den BergDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joost J C VerhoeffDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeSpine delineation is essential for high quality radiotherapy treatment planning of spinal metastases. However, manual delineation is time-consuming and prone to interobserver variability. Automatic spine delineation, especially using deep learning, has shown promising results in healthy subjects. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of deep learning-based vertebral body delineations for radiotherapy planning purposes. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multi-scale convolutional neural network (CNN) was used for automatic segmentation and labeling. Two approaches were tested: the combined approach using one CNN for both segmentation and labeling, and the sequential approach using separate CNN's for these tasks. Training and internal validation data included 580 vertebrae, external validation data included 202 vertebrae. For quantitative assessment, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD) were used. Axial slices from external images were presented to radiation oncologists for subjective evaluation.

resultsBoth approaches performed comparably during the internal validation (DSC: 96.7%, HD: 3.6 mm), but the sequential approach proved more robust during the external validation (DSC: 94.5% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001, HD: 4.5 vs 7.1 mm, p < 0.001). Subsequently, subjective evaluation of this sequential approach showed that experienced radiation oncologists could distinguish automatic from human-made contours in 63% of cases. They rated automatic contours clinically acceptable in 77% of cases, compared to 88% of human-made contours.

conclusionWe present a feasible approach for automatic vertebral body delineation using two variants of a multi-scale CNN. This approach generates high quality automatic delineations, which can save time in a clinical radiotherapy workflow.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAuto-segmentationDeep learningSpinal metastases

Identifiers

PMID35243030
PMCPMC8857663

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.