Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37078392›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Parametric delineation uncertainties contouring (PDUC) modeling on CT scans of prostate cancer patients.

Vi Ly, Lizhong Liu, Carlos Cardenas, Sean Maroongroge, Brian De, Daniel El Basha, Laurence Court, Xi Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Vi LyDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Lizhong LiuDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA.
Carlos CardenasDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sean MaroongrogeDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Brian DeDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Daniel El BashaDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Laurence CourtDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Xi LuoDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Large-scale Network Modeling for Brain Dynamics: Statistical Learning and OptimizationR01EB022911 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI LUO, XI · 2016 to 2018
$1.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB022911NIH HHS R01EB022911
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVariability in contouring contributes to large variations in radiation therapy planning and treatment outcomes. The development and testing of tools to automatically detect contouring errors require a source of contours that includes well-understood and realistic errors. The purpose of this work was to develop a simulation algorithm that intentionally injects errors of varying magnitudes into clinically accepted contours and produces realistic contours with different levels of variability.

methodsWe used a dataset of CT scans from 14 prostate cancer patients with clinician-drawn contours of the regions of interest (ROI) of the prostate, bladder, and rectum. Using our newly developed Parametric Delineation Uncertainties Contouring (PDUC) model, we automatically generated alternative, realistic contours. The PDUC model consists of the contrast-based DU generator and a 3D smoothing layer. The DU generator transforms contours (deformation, contraction, and/or expansion) as a function of image contrast. The generated contours undergo 3D smoothing to obtain a realistic look. After model building, the first batch of auto-generated contours was reviewed. Editing feedback from the reviews was then used in a filtering model for the auto-selection of clinically acceptable (minor-editing) DU contours.

resultsOverall, C values of 5 and 50 consistently produced high proportions of minor-editing contours across all ROI compared to the other C values (0.936 DISCUSSION: The proposed methodology and subsequent results are promising and could have a great impact on treatment planning by generating mathematically simulated alternative structures that are clinically relevant and realistic enough (i.e., similar to clinician-drawn contours) to be used in quality control of radiation therapy.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleProstateRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectumTomography, X-Ray ComputedUrinary Bladdercancercontouringdelineation uncertaintiessimulation algorithmtreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID37078392
PMCPMC10338799

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.