ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Automated treatment planning for proton pencil beam scanning using deep learning dose prediction and dose-mimicking optimization.
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 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.
- Quality assurance for deep learning-based proton therapy planning in routine clinical use for oropharyngeal cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Validation of automated script-based proton therapy optimisation for comparative head and neck planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based dose prediction in proton beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of network architectures and loss functions.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Article
- NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence for Automatic Treatment Planning in Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials: Present and Future.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Article
- Current status and upcoming developments for online adaptive proton therapy enabling a closed feedback loop for near real-time adaptation.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in radiation therapy: from imaging to delivery-a comprehensive review.BJR artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Automated treatment planning for proton pencil beam scanning using deep learning dose prediction and dose-mimicking optimization.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the use of a deep learning architecture for automated treatment planning for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS).
methodsA 3-dimensional (3D) U-Net model has been implemented in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) that uses contoured regions of interest (ROI) binary masks as model inputs with a predicted dose distribution as the model output. Predicted dose distributions were converted to deliverable PBS treatment plans using a voxel-wise robust dose mimicking optimization algorithm. This model was leveraged to generate machine learning (ML) optimized plans for patients receiving proton PBS irradiation of the chest wall. Model training was carried out on a retrospective set of 48 previously-treated chest wall patient treatment plans. Model evaluation was carried out by generating ML-optimized plans on a hold-out set of 12 contoured chest wall patient CT datasets from previously treated patients. Clinical goal criteria and gamma analysis were used to compare dose distributions of the ML-optimized plans against the clinically approved plans across the test patients.
resultsStatistical analysis of mean clinical goal criteria indicates that compared to the clinical plans, the ML optimization workflow generated robust plans with similar dose to the heart, lungs, and esophagus while achieving superior dosimetric coverage to the PTV chest wall (clinical mean V95 = 97.6% vs. ML mean V95 = 99.1%, p < 0.001) across the 12 test patients.
conclusionsML-based automated treatment plan optimization using the 3D U-Net model can generate treatment plans of similar clinical quality compared to human-driven optimization.
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.