Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37229460›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2023

Clinical evaluation of a deep learning segmentation model including manual adjustments afterwards for locally advanced breast cancer.

Nienke Bakx, Dorien Rijkaart, Maurice van der Sangen, Jacqueline Theuws, Peter-Paul van der Toorn, An-Sofie Verrijssen, Jorien van der Leer, Joline Mutsaers, Thérèse van Nunen, Marjon Reinders and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  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

16 authors.

Nienke BakxCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Dorien RijkaartCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Maurice van der SangenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jacqueline TheuwsCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Peter-Paul van der ToornCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
An-Sofie VerrijssenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jorien van der LeerCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Joline MutsaersCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Thérèse van NunenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Marjon ReindersCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Inge SchuengelCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Julia SmitsCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Els HagelaarCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Dave van GruijthuijsenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Hanneke BlueminkCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Coen HurkmansCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Deep learning (DL) models are increasingly developed for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy. Qualitative analysis is of great importance for clinical implementation, next to quantitative. This study evaluates a DL segmentation model for left- and right-sided locally advanced breast cancer both quantitatively and qualitatively. Methods: For each side a DL model was trained, including primary breast CTV (CTVp), lymph node levels 1-4, heart, lungs, humeral head, thyroid and esophagus. For evaluation, both automatic segmentation, including correction of contours when needed, and manual delineation was performed and both processes were timed. Quantitative scoring with dice-similarity coefficient (DSC), 95% Hausdorff Distance (95%HD) and surface DSC (sDSC) was used to compare both the automatic (not-corrected) and corrected contours with the manual contours. Qualitative scoring was performed by five radiotherapy technologists and five radiation oncologists using a 3-point Likert scale. Results: Time reduction was achieved using auto-segmentation in 95% of the cases, including correction. The time reduction (mean ± std) was 42.4% ± 26.5% and 58.5% ± 19.1% for OARs and CTVs, respectively, corresponding to an absolute mean reduction (hh:mm:ss) of 00:08:51 and 00:25:38. Good quantitative results were achieved before correction, e.g. mean DSC for the right-sided CTVp was 0.92 ± 0.06, whereas correction statistically significantly improved this contour by only 0.02 ± 0.05, respectively. In 92% of the cases, auto-contours were scored as clinically acceptable, with or without corrections. Conclusions: A DL segmentation model was trained and was shown to be a time-efficient way to generate clinically acceptable contours for locally advanced breast cancer.

Indexed as

Auto-segmentationBreast cancerDeep learningRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37229460
PMCPMC10205480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.