Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38303923›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Knowledge-based versus deep learning based treatment planning for breast radiotherapy.

Daniel Portik, Enrico Clementel, Jérôme Krayenbühl, Nienke Bakx, Nicolaus Andratschke, Coen Hurkmans

Open access · goldAbstract 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Daniel PortikEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
Enrico ClementelEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
Jérôme KrayenbühlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Nienke BakxDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Nicolaus AndratschkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Coen HurkmansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BERadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: To improve radiotherapy (RT) planning efficiency and plan quality, knowledge-based planning (KBP) and deep learning (DL) solutions have been developed. We aimed to make a direct comparison of these models for breast cancer planning using the same training, validation, and testing sets. Materials and Methods: Two KBP models were trained and validated with 90 RT plans for left-sided breast cancer with 15 fractions of 2.6 Gy. The versions either used the full dataset (non-clean model) or a cleaned dataset (clean model), thus eliminating geometric and dosimetric outliers. Results were compared with a DL U-net model (previously trained and validated with the same 90 RT plans) and manually produced RT plans, for the same independent dataset of 15 patients. Clinically relevant dose volume histogram parameters were evaluated according to established consensus criteria. Results: Both KBP models underestimated the mean heart and lung dose equally 0.4 Gy (0.3-1.1 Gy) and 1.4 Gy (1.1-2.8 Gy) compared to the clinical plans 0.8 Gy (0.5-1.8 Gy) and 1.7 Gy (1.3-3.2 Gy) while in the final calculations the mean lung dose was higher 1.9-2.0 Gy (1.5-3.5 Gy) for both KPB models. The U-Net model resulted in a mean planning target volume dose of 40.7 Gy (40.4-41.3 Gy), slightly higher than the clinical plans 40.5 Gy (40.1-41.0 Gy). Conclusions: Only small differences were observed between the estimated and final dose calculation and the clinical results for both KPB models and the DL model. With a good set of breast plans, the data cleaning module is not needed and both KPB and DL models lead to clinically acceptable results.

Identifiers

PMID38303923
PMCPMC10832493
OpenAlexW4391046518

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.