Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37986008›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023

Pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance prediction based on 1D complexity metrics and 3D planning dose: classification, gamma passing rates, and DVH metrics.

Liyuan Chen, Huanli Luo, Shi Li, Xia Tan, Bin Feng, Xin Yang, Ying Wang, Fu Jin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A comprehensive site-specific analysis of patient-specific quality assurance based on dose volume histogram of RapidArc treatment delivery.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Liyuan Chen *Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Huanli Luo *Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Shi LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Xia TanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Bin FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Xin YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Ying WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China.
Fu JinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, 400030, China. jfazj@126.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation Project of Chongqing cstc2021jcyjmsxmX0441Science-Health Joint Project of Chongqing 2022DBXM005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHighly modulated radiotherapy plans aim to achieve target conformality and spare organs at risk, but the high complexity of the plan may increase the uncertainty of treatment. Thus, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) plays a crucial role in ensuring treatment accuracy and providing clinical guidance. This study aims to propose a prediction model based on complexity metrics and patient planning dose for PSQA results. MATERIALS AND

methodsPlanning dose, measurement-based reconstructed dose and plan complexity metrics of the 687 radiotherapy plans of patients treated in our institution were collected for model establishing. Global gamma passing rate (GPR, 3%/2mm,10% threshold) of 90% was used as QA criterion. Neural architecture models based on Swin-transformer were adapted to process 3D dose and incorporate 1D metrics to predict QA results. The dataset was divided into training (447), validation (90), and testing (150) sets. Evaluation of predictions was performed using mean absolute error (MAE) for GPR, planning target volume (PTV) HI and PTV CI, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for PTV D

resultsIn this dataset, 72.8% (500/687) plans passed the pretreatment QA under the criterion. On the testing set, our model achieves the highest performance, with the 1D model slightly surpassing the 3D model. The performance results are as follows (combine, 1D, and 3D transformer): The AUCs are 0.92, 0.88 and 0.86 for QA classification. The MAEs of prediction are 0.039, 0.046, and 0.040 for 3D GPR, 0.018, 0.021, and 0.019 for PTV HI, and 0.075, 0.078, and 0.084 for PTV CI. Specifically, for cases with 3D GPRs greater than 90%, the MAE could achieve 0.020 (combine). The MAPE of prediction is 1.23%, 1.52%, and 1.66% for PTV D

conclusionThe model based on 1D complexity metrics and 3D planning dose could predict pretreatment PSQA results with high accuracy and the complexity metrics play a leading role in the model. Furthermore, dose-volume metric deviations of PTV could be predicted and more clinically valuable information could be provided.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedGamma RaysHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedComplexity metricsDeep learningDose-volume histogramsPatient-specific quality assurance

Identifiers

PMID37986008
PMCPMC10662260

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.