ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2023
Clinical evaluation of a deep learning segmentation model including manual adjustments afterwards for locally advanced breast cancer.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic segmentation of clinical target volume for radiation therapy in breast-conserving patients and exploration of clinical factors influential to its performance.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Automated deep learning segmentation and planning for left-sided breast radiotherapy with minimised adaptations based on dose, TCP and NTCP criteria.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Statistical process control for performance monitoring and continuous quality assurance of deep learning segmentations in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Validation of different automated segmentation models for target volume contouring in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer and regional nodal irradiation.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the use of a clinically implemented deep learning segmentation model with the simulated study setting for breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- Clinical adoption of deep learning target auto-segmentation for radiation therapy: challenges, clinical risks, and mitigation strategies.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Clinical Implementation and Evaluation of Auto-Segmentation Tools for Multi-Site Contouring in Radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of the output of a deep learning segmentation model for locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy trained on 2 different datasets.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.