Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36639667›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023

IMPT of head and neck cancer: unsupervised machine learning treatment planning strategy for reducing radiation dermatitis.

Noufal Manthala Padannayil, Dayananda Shamurailatpam Sharma, Sapna Nangia, Kartikeshwar C Patro, Utpal Gaikwad, Nagarjuna Burela

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Recent advances in applying machine learning to proton radiotherapy.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Noufal Manthala PadannayilDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 400053, India.
Dayananda Shamurailatpam SharmaDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 400053, India. dayananda.shamurailatpam@gmail.com.
Sapna NangiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kartikeshwar C PatroDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 400053, India.
Utpal GaikwadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Nagarjuna BurelaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, 100 Feet Road Tharamani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Apollo Proton Cancer Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation dermatitis is a major concern in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) despite its demonstrated superiority over contemporary photon radiotherapy. In this study, dose surface histogram data extracted from forty-four patients of HNC treated with IMPT was used to predict the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of skin. Grades of NTCP-skin were clustered using the K-means clustering unsupervised machine learning (ML) algorithm. A new skin-sparing IMPT (IMPT-SS) planning strategy was developed with three major changes and prospectively implemented in twenty HNC patients. Across skin surfaces exposed from 10 (S10) to 70 (S70) GyRBE, the skin's NTCP demonstrated the strongest associations with S50 and S40 GyRBE (0.95 and 0.94). The increase in the NTCP of skin per unit GyRBE is 0.568 for skin exposed to 50 GyRBE as compared to 0.418 for 40 GyRBE. Three distinct clusters were formed, with 41% of patients in G1, 32% in G2, and 27% in G3. The average (± SD) generalised equivalent uniform dose for G1, G2, and G3 clusters was 26.54 ± 6.75, 38.73 ± 1.80, and 45.67 ± 2.20 GyRBE. The corresponding NTCP (%) were 4.97 ± 5.12, 48.12 ± 12.72 and 87.28 ± 7.73 respectively. In comparison to IMPT, new IMPT-SS plans significantly (P < 0.01) reduced SX GyRBE, gEUD, and associated NTCP-skin while maintaining identical dose volume indices for target and other organs at risk. The mean NTCP-skin value for IMPT-SS was 34% lower than that of IMPT. The dose to skin in patients treated prospectively for HNC was reduced by including gEUD for an acceptable radiation dermatitis determined from the local patient population using an unsupervised MLA in the spot map optimization of a new IMPT planning technique. However, the clinical finding of acute skin toxicity must also be related to the observed reduction in skin dose.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsProton TherapyRadiodermatitisRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedUnsupervised Machine LearningAIHead and neck cancerIMPTK-meansMachine learningProton therapySkin toxicity

Identifiers

PMID36639667
PMCPMC9840252
OpenAlexW4315979062

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.