Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38222671›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Validation of a deep-learning segmentation model for adult and pediatric head and neck radiotherapy in different patient positions.

Linda Chen, Patricia Platzer, Christian Reschl, Mansure Schafasand, Ankita Nachankar, Christoph Lukas Hajdusich, Peter Kuess, Markus Stock, Steven Habraken, Antonio Carlino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Linda ChenMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Patricia PlatzerMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Christian ReschlMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Mansure SchafasandMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Ankita NachankarMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Christoph Lukas HajdusichMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Peter KuessMedical University of Vienna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Austria.
Markus StockMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Steven HabrakenErasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Antonio CarlinoMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Department of Medical Physics, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Autocontouring for radiotherapy has the potential to significantly save time and reduce interobserver variability. We aimed to assess the performance of a commercial autocontouring model for head and neck (H&N) patients in eight orientations relevant to particle therapy with fixed beam lines, focusing on validation and implementation for routine clinical use. Materials and methods: Autocontouring was performed on sixteen organs at risk (OARs) for 98 adult and pediatric patients with 137 H&N CT scans in eight orientations. A geometric comparison of the autocontours and manual segmentations was performed using the Hausdorff Distance 95th percentile, Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and surface DSC and compared to interobserver variability where available. Additional qualitative scoring and dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters analyses were performed for twenty patients in two positions, consisting of scoring on a 0-3 scale based on clinical usability and comparing the mean (D Results: For the geometric analysis, the model performance in head-first-supine straight and hyperextended orientations was in the same range as the interobserver variability. HD95, DSC and surface DSC was heterogeneous in other orientations. No significant geometric differences were found between pediatric and adult autocontours. The qualitative scoring yielded a median score of ≥ 2 for 13/16 OARs while 7/32 DVH parameters were significantly different. Conclusions: For head-first-supine straight and hyperextended scans, we found that 13/16 OAR autocontours were suited for use in daily clinical practice and subsequently implemented. Further development is needed for other patient orientations before implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAutocontouringAuto-segmentationHead and neck cancerOrgans-at-riskRadiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID38222671
PMCPMC10787237

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.