Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36299565›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Automated Brain Metastases Segmentation With a Deep Dive Into False-positive Detection.

Hamidreza Ziyaee, Carlos E Cardenas, D Nana Yeboa, Jing Li, Sherise D Ferguson, Jason Johnson, Zijian Zhou, Jeremiah Sanders, Raymond Mumme, Laurence Court and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hamidreza ZiyaeeDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Carlos E CardenasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
D Nana YeboaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jing LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sherise D FergusonDepartment of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jason JohnsonDepartment of Neuroradiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Zijian ZhouDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jeremiah SandersDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Raymond MummeDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Laurence CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Tina BriereDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jinzhong YangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The clinical management of brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is difficult, because a physician must review follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to determine treatment outcome, which is often labor intensive. The purpose of this study was to develop an automated framework to contour brain metastases in MRI to help treatment planning for SRS and understand its limitations. Methods and Materials: Two self-adaptive nnU-Net models trained on postcontrast 3-dimensional T1-weighted MRI scans from patients who underwent SRS were analyzed. Performance was evaluated by computing positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). The training and testing sets included 3482 metastases on 845 patient MRI scans and 930 metastases on 206 patient MRI scans, respectively. Results: In the per-patient analysis, PPV was 90.1% ± 17.7%, sensitivity 88.4% ± 18.0%, DSC 82.2% ± 9.5%, and false positive (FP) 0.4 ± 1.0. For large metastases (≥6 mm), the per-patient PPV was 95.6% ± 17.5%, sensitivity 94.5% ± 18.1%, DSC 86.8% ± 7.5%, and FP 0.1 ± 0.4. The quality of autosegmented true-positive (TP) contours was also assessed by 2 physicians using a 5-point scale for clinical acceptability. Seventy-five percent of contours were assigned scores of 4 or 5, which shows that contours could be used as-is in clinical application, and the remaining 25% were assigned a score of 3, which means they needed minor editing only. Notably, a deep dive into FPs indicated that 9% were TP metastases not identified on the original radiology review, but identified on subsequent follow-up imaging (early detection). Fifty-four percent were real metastases (TP) that were identified but purposefully not contoured for target treatment, mainly because the patient underwent whole-brain radiation therapy before/after SRS treatment. Conclusions: These findings show that our tool can help radiologists and radiation oncologists detect and contour tumors from MRI, make precise decisions about suspicious lesions, and potentially find lesions at early stages.

Identifiers

PMID36299565
PMCPMC9589017
OpenAlexW4297327878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.