ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2023
Semiautomated pelvic lymph node treatment response evaluation for patients with advanced prostate cancer: based on MET-RADS-P guidelines.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Can Machine Learning Models Detect and Predict Lymph Node Involvement in Prostate Cancer? A Comprehensive Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of treatment response according to METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P) criteria is an important but time-consuming task for patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC). A deep learning-based algorithm has the potential to assist with this assessment.
objectiveTo develop and evaluate a deep learning-based algorithm for semiautomated treatment response assessment of pelvic lymph nodes.
methodsA total of 162 patients who had undergone at least two scans for follow-up assessment after APC metastasis treatment were enrolled. A previously reported deep learning model was used to perform automated segmentation of pelvic lymph nodes. The performance of the deep learning algorithm was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and volumetric similarity (VS). The consistency of the short diameter measurement with the radiologist was evaluated using Bland-Altman plotting. Based on the segmentation of lymph nodes, the treatment response was assessed automatically with a rule-based program according to the MET-RADS-P criteria. Kappa statistics were used to assess the accuracy and consistency of the treatment response assessment by the deep learning model and two radiologists [attending radiologist (R1) and fellow radiologist (R2)].
resultsThe mean DSC and VS of the pelvic lymph node segmentation were 0.82 ± 0.09 and 0.88 ± 0.12, respectively. Bland-Altman plotting showed that most of the lymph node measurements were within the upper and lower limits of agreement (LOA). The accuracies of automated segmentation-based assessment were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95) and 75% (95% CI: 0.46-0.92) for target lesions, nontarget lesions and nonpathological lesions, respectively. The consistency of treatment response assessment based on automated segmentation and manual segmentation was excellent for target lesions [K value: 0.92 (0.86-0.98)], good for nontarget lesions [0.82 (0.74-0.90)] and moderate for nonpathological lesions [0.71 (0.50-0.92)].
conclusionThe deep learning-based semiautomated algorithm showed high accuracy for the treatment response assessment of pelvic lymph nodes and demonstrated comparable performance with radiologists.
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.