Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37706560›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2023

Deep learning-based dose prediction to improve the plan quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy for gynecologic cancers.

Mary P Gronberg, Anuja Jhingran, Tucker J Netherton, Skylar S Gay, Carlos E Cardenas, Christine Chung, David Fuentes, Clifton D Fuller, Rebecca M Howell, Meena Khan and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Intentional creation of suboptimal, realistic dose distributions.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

19 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mary P GronbergDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Anuja JhingranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Tucker J NethertonDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Skylar S GayDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Carlos E CardenasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Christine ChungDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
David FuentesThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Clifton D FullerThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Rebecca M HowellDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Meena KhanDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Tze Yee LimDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Barbara MarquezDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Adenike M OlanrewajuDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Christine B PetersonThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Ivan VazquezDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Thomas J WhitakerDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Zachary WootenDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Ming YangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Convalescent Plasma to Limit Coronavirus Associated ComplicationsUL1TR003167 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI KARP, DANIEL D, MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2019 to 2023
$45.3M
Training Program in Biostatistics for Cancer ResearchT32CA096520 · NCI · RICE UNIVERSITY · PI KIMMEL, MAREK, YUAN, YING · 2003 to 2023
$4.5M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR003169 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI CHANDRA, JOYA, FROST, JEFFREY A. · 2019 to 2023
$3.7M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR003169NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003167NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS T32 CA096520Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, deep-learning models have been used to predict entire three-dimensional dose distributions. However, the usability of dose predictions to improve plan quality should be further investigated. PURPOSE: To develop a deep-learning model to predict high-quality dose distributions for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for patients with gynecologic cancer and to evaluate their usability in driving plan quality improvements.

methodsA total of 79 VMAT plans for the female pelvis were used to train (47 plans), validate (16 plans), and test (16 plans) 3D dense dilated U-Net models to predict 3D dose distributions. The models received the normalized CT scan, dose prescription, and target and normal tissue contours as inputs. Three models were used to predict the dose distributions for plans in the test set. A radiation oncologist specializing in the treatment of gynecologic cancers scored the test set predictions using a 5-point scale (5, acceptable as-is; 4, prefer minor edits; 3, minor edits needed; 2, major edits needed; and 1, unacceptable). The clinical plans for which the dose predictions indicated that improvements could be made were reoptimized with constraints extracted from the predictions.

resultsThe predicted dose distributions in the test set were of comparable quality to the clinical plans. The mean voxel-wise dose difference was -0.14 ± 0.46 Gy. The percentage dose differences in the predicted target metrics of

conclusionsDeep-learning dose prediction can be used to predict high-quality and clinically acceptable dose distributions for VMAT female pelvis plans, which can then be used to identify plans that can be improved with additional optimization.

Indexed as

Deep LearningNeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedFemaleHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedartificial intelligencedeep learningdose predictionquality assurance

Identifiers

PMID37706560
PMCPMC10947338
OpenAlexW4386726659

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.