Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37712064›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023

Automated contouring and statistical process control for plan quality in a breast clinical trial.

Hana Baroudi, Callistus I Huy Minh Nguyen, Sean Maroongroge, Benjamin D Smith, Joshua S Niedzielski, Simona F Shaitelman, Adam Melancon, Sanjay Shete, Thomas J Whitaker, Melissa P Mitchell and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

18 authors.

Hana BaroudiThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA.
Callistus I Huy Minh NguyenDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Sean MaroongrogeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Benjamin D SmithDepartment of Breast Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Joshua S NiedzielskiDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Simona F ShaitelmanDepartment of Breast Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Adam MelanconDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Sanjay SheteThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA.
Thomas J WhitakerDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Melissa P MitchellDepartment of Breast Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Isidora Yvonne ArzuDepartment of Breast Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jack DuryeaDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Soleil HernandezThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA.
Daniel El BashaThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA.
Raymond MummeDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Tucker NethertonDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Karen HoffmanDepartment of Breast Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Laurence CourtThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Automatic review of breast plan quality for clinical trials is time-consuming and has some unique challenges due to the lack of target contours for some planning techniques. We propose using an auto-contouring model and statistical process control to independently assess planning consistency in retrospective data from a breast radiotherapy clinical trial. Materials and methods: A deep learning auto-contouring model was created and tested quantitatively and qualitatively on 104 post-lumpectomy patients' computed tomography images (nnUNet; train/test: 80/20). The auto-contouring model was then applied to 127 patients enrolled in a clinical trial. Statistical process control was used to assess the consistency of the mean dose to auto-contours between plans and treatment modalities by setting control limits within three standard deviations of the data's mean. Two physicians reviewed plans outside the limits for possible planning inconsistencies. Results: Mean Dice similarity coefficients comparing manual and auto-contours was above 0.7 for breast clinical target volume, supraclavicular and internal mammary nodes. Two radiation oncologists scored 95% of contours as clinically acceptable. The mean dose in the clinical trial plans was more variable for lymph node auto-contours than for breast, with a narrower distribution for volumetric modulated arc therapy than for 3D conformal treatment, requiring distinct control limits. Five plans (5%) were flagged and reviewed by physicians: one required editing, two had clinically acceptable variations in planning, and two had poor auto-contouring. Conclusions: An automated contouring model in a statistical process control framework was appropriate for assessing planning consistency in a breast radiotherapy clinical trial.

Indexed as

Automated segmentationBreast cancerPlan quality assuranceRadiotherapy clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID37712064
PMCPMC10498301

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.