Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38254904›Full record

ArticleCancers2024

Segmentation of 71 Anatomical Structures Necessary for the Evaluation of Guideline-Conforming Clinical Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancers.

Alexandra Walter, Philipp Hoegen-Saßmannshausen, Goran Stanic, Joao Pedro Rodrigues, Sebastian Adeberg, Oliver Jäkel, Martin Frank, Kristina Giske

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 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. Review
  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

8 authors.

Alexandra WalterDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5044-0133
Philipp Hoegen-SaßmannshausenHeidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Goran StanicDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3805-9142
Joao Pedro RodriguesDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0272-8500
Sebastian AdebergDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Marburg University Hospital, 35043 Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8463-514X
Oliver JäkelDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin FrankKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Scientific Computing Center, Zirkel 2, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Kristina GiskeDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7287-3271

Funding

Helmholtz Information & Data Science School for Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The delineation of the clinical target volumes (CTVs) for radiation therapy is time-consuming, requires intensive training and shows high inter-observer variability. Supervised deep-learning methods depend heavily on consistent training data; thus, State-of-the-Art research focuses on making CTV labels more homogeneous and strictly bounding them to current standards. International consensus expert guidelines standardize CTV delineation by conditioning the extension of the clinical target volume on the surrounding anatomical structures. Training strategies that directly follow the construction rules given in the expert guidelines or the possibility of quantifying the conformance of manually drawn contours to the guidelines are still missing. Seventy-one anatomical structures that are relevant to CTV delineation in head- and neck-cancer patients, according to the expert guidelines, were segmented on 104 computed tomography scans, to assess the possibility of automating their segmentation by State-of-the-Art deep learning methods. All 71 anatomical structures were subdivided into three subsets of non-overlapping structures, and a 3D nnU-Net model with five-fold cross-validation was trained for each subset, to automatically segment the structures on planning computed tomography scans. We report the DICE, Hausdorff distance and surface DICE for 71 + 5 anatomical structures, for most of which no previous segmentation accuracies have been reported. For those structures for which prediction values have been reported, our segmentation accuracy matched or exceeded the reported values. The predictions from our models were always better than those predicted by the TotalSegmentator. The sDICE with 2 mm margin was larger than 80% for almost all the structures. Individual structures with decreased segmentation accuracy are analyzed and discussed with respect to their impact on the CTV delineation following the expert guidelines. No deviation is expected to affect the rule-based automation of the CTV delineation.

Indexed as

anatomical structuresautomatic segmentationclinical target volume delineationexpert guidelineshead and neck cancerlymph-node-level segmentationmulti-label segmentation

Identifiers

PMID38254904
PMCPMC11154560

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.