Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37007914›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023

Deep learning-based segmentation of prostatic urethra on computed tomography scans for treatment planning.

Lucía Cubero, Laura García-Elcano, Eugenia Mylona, Adrien Boue-Rafle, Cesare Cozzarini, Maria Giulia Ubeira Gabellini, Tiziana Rancati, Claudio Fiorino, Renaud de Crevoisier, Oscar Acosta and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Urethra contours on MRI: Multidisciplinary consensus educational atlas and reference standard for artificial intelligence benchmarking.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Lucía CuberoDepartamento de Bioingeniería, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Laura García-ElcanoDepartamento de Bioingeniería, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Eugenia MylonaBiomedical Research Institute FORTH, Ioannina, Greece.
Adrien Boue-RafleUniversité Rennes, CLCC Eugène Marquis, Inserm, LTSI - UMR 1099, F-35000 Rennes, France.
Cesare CozzariniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute - IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Maria Giulia Ubeira GabelliniDepartment of Medical Physics, San Raffaele Scientific Institute - IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Tiziana RancatiScience Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Claudio FiorinoDepartment of Medical Physics, San Raffaele Scientific Institute - IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Renaud de CrevoisierUniversité Rennes, CLCC Eugène Marquis, Inserm, LTSI - UMR 1099, F-35000 Rennes, France.
Oscar AcostaUniversité Rennes, CLCC Eugène Marquis, Inserm, LTSI - UMR 1099, F-35000 Rennes, France.
Javier PascauDepartamento de Bioingeniería, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Inserm · FRIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESUniversidad Carlos III de Madrid · ESVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: The intraprostatic urethra is an organ at risk in prostate cancer radiotherapy, but its segmentation in computed tomography (CT) is challenging. This work sought to: i) propose an automatic pipeline for intraprostatic urethra segmentation in CT, ii) analyze the dose to the urethra, iii) compare the predictions to magnetic resonance (MR) contours. Materials and methods: First, we trained Deep Learning networks to segment the rectum, bladder, prostate, and seminal vesicles. Then, the proposed Deep Learning Urethra Segmentation model was trained with the bladder and prostate distance transforms and 44 labeled CT with visible catheters. The evaluation was performed on 11 datasets, calculating centerline distance (CLD) and percentage of centerline within 3.5 and 5 mm. We applied this method to a dataset of 32 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to quantify the urethral dose. Finally, we compared predicted intraprostatic urethra contours to manual delineations in MR for 15 patients without catheter. Results: A mean CLD of 1.6 ± 0.8 mm for the whole urethra and 1.7 ± 1.4, 1.5 ± 0.9, and 1.7 ± 0.9 mm for the top, middle, and bottom thirds were obtained in CT. On average, 94% and 97% of the segmented centerlines were within a 3.5 mm and 5 mm radius, respectively. In IMRT, the urethra received a higher dose than the overall prostate. We also found a slight deviation between the predicted and manual MR delineations. Conclusion: A fully-automatic segmentation pipeline was validated to delineate the intraprostatic urethra in CT images.

Indexed as

Deep learning segmentationIntraprostatic urethraOAR segmentationProstate cancer radiotherapyUrinary toxicity

Identifiers

PMID37007914
PMCPMC10064422
OpenAlexW4328107813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.