ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Customizable landmark-based field aperture design for automated whole-brain radiotherapy treatment planning.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isocenter Optimization in WBRT: Concurrent Sparing of Lens and Lacrimal Gland via Anterior Penumbra Sharpening.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Automated treatment planning for brain and spinal metastases.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Semi-automated hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Addressing the Global Expertise Gap in Radiation Oncology: The Radiation Planning Assistant.JCO global oncology · 2023Review
- Customizable landmark-based field aperture design for automated whole-brain radiotherapy treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Automated field-in-field whole brain radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and evaluate an automated whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) treatment planning pipeline with a deep learning-based auto-contouring and customizable landmark-based field aperture design.
methodsThe pipeline consisted of the following steps: (1) Auto-contour normal structures on computed tomography scans and digitally reconstructed radiographs using deep learning techniques, (2) locate the landmark structures using the beam's-eye-view, (3) generate field apertures based on eight different landmark rules addressing different clinical purposes and physician preferences. Two parallel approaches for generating field apertures were developed for quality control. The performance of the generated field shapes and dose distributions were compared with the original clinical plans. The clinical acceptability of the plans was assessed by five radiation oncologists from four hospitals.
resultsThe performance of the generated field apertures was evaluated by the Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean surface distance (MSD) from 182 patients' field apertures used in the clinic. The average HD and MSD for the generated field apertures were 16 ± 7 and 7 ± 3 mm for the first approach, respectively, and 17 ± 7 and 7 ± 3 mm, respectively, for the second approach. The differences regarding HD and MSD between the first and the second approaches were 1 ± 2 and 1 ± 3 mm, respectively. A clinical review of the field aperture design, conducted using 30 patients, achieved a 100% acceptance rate for both the first and second approaches, and the plan review achieved a 100% acceptance rate for the first approach and a 93% acceptance rate for the second approach. The average acceptance rate for meeting lens dosimetric recommendations was 80% (left lens) and 77% (right lens) for the first approach, and 70% (both left and right lenses) for the second approach, compared with 50% (left lens) and 53% (right lens) for the clinical plans.
conclusionThis study provided an automated pipeline with two field aperture generation approaches to automatically generate WBRT treatment plans. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrated that our novel pipeline was comparable with the original clinical plans.
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.