Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091160›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Validation of clinical acceptability of deep-learning-based automated segmentation of organs-at-risk for head-and-neck radiotherapy treatment planning.

J John Lucido, Todd A DeWees, Todd R Leavitt, Aman Anand, Chris J Beltran, Mark D Brooke, Justine R Buroker, Robert L Foote, Olivia R Foss, Angela M Gleason and 14 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

J John LucidoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Todd A DeWeesDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Todd R LeavittDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Aman AnandDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Chris J BeltranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States.
Mark D BrookeGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Justine R BurokerResearch Services, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Robert L FooteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Olivia R FossRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Angela M GleasonRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Teresa L HodgeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Cían O HughesGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Ashley E HunzekerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Nadia N LaackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Tamra K LenzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Michelle LivneGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Megumi MorigamiGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Douglas J MoseleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Lisa M UndahlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Yojan PatelGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Erik J TryggestadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Megan Z WalkerGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Alexei ZverovitchGoogle Health, Mountain View, CA, United States.
Samir H PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USGoogle (United States) · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Organ-at-risk segmentation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy is a complex and time-consuming process (requiring up to 42 individual structure, and may delay start of treatment or even limit access to function-preserving care. Feasibility of using a deep learning (DL) based autosegmentation model to reduce contouring time without compromising contour accuracy is assessed through a blinded randomized trial of radiation oncologists (ROs) using retrospective, de-identified patient data. Methods: Two head and neck expert ROs used dedicated time to create gold standard (GS) contours on computed tomography (CT) images. 445 CTs were used to train a custom 3D U-Net DL model covering 42 organs-at-risk, with an additional 20 CTs were held out for the randomized trial. For each held-out patient dataset, one of the eight participant ROs was randomly allocated to review and revise the contours produced by the DL model, while another reviewed contours produced by a medical dosimetry assistant (MDA), both blinded to their origin. Time required for MDAs and ROs to contour was recorded, and the unrevised DL contours, as well as the RO-revised contours by the MDAs and DL model were compared to the GS for that patient. Results: Mean time for initial MDA contouring was 2.3 hours (range 1.6-3.8 hours) and RO-revision took 1.1 hours (range, 0.4-4.4 hours), compared to 0.7 hours (range 0.1-2.0 hours) for the RO-revisions to DL contours. Total time reduced by 76% (95%-Confidence Interval: 65%-88%) and RO-revision time reduced by 35% (95%-CI,-39%-91%). All geometric and dosimetric metrics computed, agreement with GS was equivalent or significantly greater (p<0.05) for RO-revised DL contours compared to the RO-revised MDA contours, including volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (VDSC), surface DSC, added path length, and the 95%-Hausdorff distance. 32 OARs (76%) had mean VDSC greater than 0.8 for the RO-revised DL contours, compared to 20 (48%) for RO-revised MDA contours, and 34 (81%) for the unrevised DL OARs. Conclusion: DL autosegmentation demonstrated significant time-savings for organ-at-risk contouring while improving agreement with the institutional GS, indicating comparable accuracy of DL model. Integration into the clinical practice with a prospective evaluation is currently underway.

Indexed as

autosegmentationclinical validationcomprehensivedeep learninghead and neck cancerorgans-at-riskradiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID37091160
PMCPMC10115982
OpenAlexW4362672011

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.