ArticleMedical physics2022
Clinical acceptability of fully automated external beam radiotherapy for cervical cancer with three different beam delivery techniques.
Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can physics review catch prescription and PTV margin errors in fully automated radiotherapy plans? A hazard study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Prospective blinded clinical evaluation of a fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Desargues cloud TPS: a cloud-based automatic radiation treatment planning system for IMRT.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Feasibility and impact of knowledge-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning in low- and middle-income countries.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Evaluating automatically generated normal tissue contours for safe use in head and neck and cervical cancer treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of multiple-vendor AI autocontouring solutions.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Automatic end-to-end VMAT treatment planning for rectal cancers.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Radiotherapy Contouring and Planning to Improve Global Access to Cancer Care.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Hazard testing to reduce risk in the development of automated planning tools.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Addressing the Global Expertise Gap in Radiation Oncology: The Radiation Planning Assistant.JCO global oncology · 2023Review
- Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is 'Clinically Acceptable'?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clinical acceptability of fully automated external beam radiotherapy for cervical cancer with three different beam delivery techniques.Medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo fully automate CT-based cervical cancer radiotherapy by automating contouring and planning for three different treatment techniques.
methodsWe automated three different radiotherapy planning techniques for locally advanced cervical cancer: 2D 4-field-box (4-field-box), 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). These auto-planning algorithms were combined with a previously developed auto-contouring system. To improve the quality of the 4-field-box and 3D-CRT plans, we used an in-house, field-in-field (FIF) automation program. Thirty-five plans were generated for each technique on CT scans from multiple institutions and evaluated by five experienced radiation oncologists from three different countries. Every plan was reviewed by two of the five radiation oncologists and scored using a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsOverall, 87%, 99%, and 94% of the automatically generated plans were found to be clinically acceptable without modification for the 4-field-box, 3D-CRT, and VMAT plans, respectively. Some customizations of the FIF configuration were necessary on the basis of radiation oncologist preference. Additionally, in some cases, it was necessary to renormalize the plan after it was generated to satisfy radiation oncologist preference.
conclusionApproximately, 90% of the automatically generated plans were clinically acceptable for all three planning techniques. This fully automated planning system has been implemented into the radiation planning assistant for further testing in resource-constrained radiotherapy departments in low- and middle-income countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.