Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37263911›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2024

Automatic AI-based contouring of prostate MRI for online adaptive radiotherapy.

Marcel Nachbar, Monica Lo Russo, Cihan Gani, Simon Boeke, Daniel Wegener, Frank Paulsen, Daniel Zips, Thais Roque, Nikos Paragios, Daniela Thorwarth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Artificial intelligence for treatment delivery: image-guided radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  19. MR-linac: role of artificial intelligence and automation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  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

10 authors.

Marcel NachbarSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Monica Lo RussoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Cihan GaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Simon BoekeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel WegenerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Frank PaulsenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel ZipsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Tübingen; and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thais RoqueTheraPanacea, Paris, France.
Nikos ParagiosTheraPanacea, Paris, France; CentraleSupelec, University of Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Daniela ThorwarthSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Tübingen; and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: Daniela.Thorwarth@med.uni-tuebingen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeMR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) online plan adaptation accounts for tumor volume changes, interfraction motion and thus allows daily sparing of relevant organs at risk. Due to the high interfraction variability of bladder and rectum, patients with tumors in the pelvic region may strongly benefit from adaptive MRgRT. Currently, fast automatic annotation of anatomical structures is not available within the online MRgRT workflow. Therefore, the aim of this study was to train and validate a fast, accurate deep learning model for automatic MRI segmentation at the MR-Linac for future implementation in a clinical MRgRT workflow. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor a total of 47 patients, T2w MRI data were acquired on a 1.5 T MR-Linac (Unity, Elekta) on five different days. Prostate, seminal vesicles, rectum, anal canal, bladder, penile bulb, body and bony structures were manually annotated. These training data consisting of 232 data sets in total was used for the generation of a deep learning based autocontouring model and validated on 20 unseen T2w-MRIs. For quantitative evaluation the validation set was contoured by a radiation oncologist as gold standard contours (GSC) and compared in MATLAB to the automatic contours (AIC). For the evaluation, dice similarity coefficients (DSC), and 95% Hausdorff distances (95% HD), added path length (APL) and surface DSC (sDSC) were calculated in a caudal-cranial window of ± 4 cm with respect to the prostate ends. For qualitative evaluation, five radiation oncologists scored the AIC on the possible usage within an online adaptive workflow as follows: (1) no modifications needed, (2) minor adjustments needed, (3) major adjustments/ multiple minor adjustments needed, (4) not usable.

resultsThe quantitative evaluation revealed a maximum median 95% HD of 6.9 mm for the rectum and minimum median 95% HD of 2.7 mm for the bladder. Maximal and minimal median DSC were detected for bladder with 0.97 and for penile bulb with 0.73, respectively. Using a tolerance level of 3 mm, the highest and lowest sDSC were determined for rectum (0.94) and anal canal (0.68), respectively. Qualitative evaluation resulted in a mean score of 1.2 for AICs over all organs and patients across all expert ratings. For the different autocontoured structures, the highest mean score of 1.0 was observed for anal canal, sacrum, femur left and right, and pelvis left, whereas for prostate the lowest mean score of 2.0 was detected. In total, 80% of the contours were rated be clinically acceptable, 16% to require minor and 4% major adjustments for online adaptive MRgRT.

conclusionIn this study, an AI-based autocontouring was successfully trained for online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy on the 1.5 T MR-Linac system. The developed model can automatically generate contours accepted by physicians (80%) or only with the need of minor corrections (16%) for the irradiation of primary prostate on the clinically employed sequences.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedDeep LearningHumansMaleProstateRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAdaptive radiotherapyAutomatic annotationsDeep learningMR-LinacMR-only

Identifiers

PMID37263911
PMCPMC11156783

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.