Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37016416›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023

Stratified assessment of an FDA-cleared deep learning algorithm for automated detection and contouring of metastatic brain tumors in stereotactic radiosurgery.

Jen-Yeu Wang, Vera Qu, Caressa Hui, Navjot Sandhu, Maria G Mendoza, Neil Panjwani, Yu-Cheng Chang, Chih-Hung Liang, Jen-Tang Lu, Lei Wang and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jen-Yeu Wang *Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Vera Qu *Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Caressa HuiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Navjot SandhuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Maria G MendozaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Neil PanjwaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Yu-Cheng ChangVysioneer Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Chih-Hung LiangVysioneer Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jen-Tang LuVysioneer Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Lei WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Nataliya KovalchukDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Michael F GensheimerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Scott G SoltysDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Erqi L PollomDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. erqiliu@stanford.edu.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeArtificial intelligence-based tools can be leveraged to improve detection and segmentation of brain metastases for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). VBrain by Vysioneer Inc. is a deep learning algorithm with recent FDA clearance to assist in brain tumor contouring. We aimed to assess the performance of this tool by various demographic and clinical characteristics among patients with brain metastases treated with SRS. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe randomly selected 100 patients with brain metastases who underwent initial SRS on the CyberKnife from 2017 to 2020 at a single institution. Cases with resection cavities were excluded from the analysis. Computed tomography (CT) and axial T1-weighted post-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) image data were extracted for each patient and uploaded to VBrain. A brain metastasis was considered "detected" when the VBrain- "predicted" contours overlapped with the corresponding physician contours ("ground-truth" contours). We evaluated performance of VBrain against ground-truth contours using the following metrics: lesion-wise Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), lesion-wise average Hausdorff distance (AVD), false positive count (FP), and lesion-wise sensitivity (%). Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to assess the relationships between patient characteristics including sex, race, primary histology, age, and size and number of brain metastases, and performance metrics such as DSC, AVD, FP, and sensitivity.

resultsWe analyzed 100 patients with 435 intact brain metastases treated with SRS. Our cohort consisted of patients with a median number of 2 brain metastases (range: 1 to 52), median age of 69 (range: 19 to 91), and 50% male and 50% female patients. The primary site breakdown was 56% lung, 10% melanoma, 9% breast, 8% gynecological, 5% renal, 4% gastrointestinal, 2% sarcoma, and 6% other, while the race breakdown was 60% White, 18% Asian, 3% Black/African American, 2% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 17% other/unknown/not reported. The median tumor size was 0.112 c.c. (range: 0.010-26.475 c.c.). We found mean lesion-wise DSC to be 0.723, mean lesion-wise AVD to be 7.34% of lesion size (0.704 mm), mean FP count to be 0.72 tumors per case, and lesion-wise sensitivity to be 89.30% for all lesions. Moreover, mean sensitivity was found to be 99.07%, 97.59%, and 96.23% for lesions with diameter equal to and greater than 10 mm, 7.5 mm, and 5 mm, respectively. No other significant differences in performance metrics were observed across demographic or clinical characteristic groups.

conclusionIn this study, a commercial deep learning algorithm showed promising results in segmenting brain metastases, with 96.23% sensitivity for metastases with diameters of 5 mm or higher. As the software is an assistive AI, future work of VBrain integration into the clinical workflow can provide further clinical and research insights.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningRadiosurgeryAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID37016416
PMCPMC10074777
OpenAlexW4362602218

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.