Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38317597›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Automatic end-to-end VMAT treatment planning for rectal cancers.

Kai Huang, Christine Chung, Ethan B Ludmir, Lifei Zhang, Constance A Owens, Jean Gumma-De La Vega, Jack Duryea, Yao Zhao, Xinru Chen, David Fuentes and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. 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
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. MR-linac: role of artificial intelligence and automation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Automatic end-to-end VMAT treatment planning for rectal cancers.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kai HuangThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Christine ChungDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Ethan B LudmirDepartment of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Lifei ZhangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Constance A OwensThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jean Gumma-De La VegaDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jack DuryeaDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Yao ZhaoThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8863-841X
Xinru ChenThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
David FuentesDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Carlos E CardenasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Tina Marie BriereDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sam BeddarDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Prajnan DasDepartment of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

CTSA K12 Program at the University of Alabama at BirminghamK12TR004769 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Renee A. Heffron, Lucio Miele · 2024 to 2026
$4.8M
MD Anderson Cancer Center Institutional Research GrantNCATS NIH HHS K12 TR004769
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe treatment planning process from segmentation to producing a deliverable plan is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Existing solutions automate the segmentation and planning processes individually. The feasibility of combining auto-segmentation and auto-planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancers in an end-to-end process is not clear. PURPOSE: To create and clinically evaluate a complete end-to-end process for auto-segmentation and auto-planning of VMAT for rectal cancer requiring only the gross tumor volume contour and a CT scan as inputs.

methodsPatient scans and data were retrospectively selected from our institutional records for patients treated for malignant neoplasm of the rectum. We trained, validated, and tested deep learning auto-segmentation models using nnU-Net architecture for clinical target volume (CTV), bowel bag, large bowel, small bowel, total bowel, femurs, bladder, bone marrow, and female and male genitalia. For the CTV, we identified 174 patients with clinically drawn CTVs. We used data for 18 patients for all structures other than the CTV. The structures were contoured under the guidance of and reviewed by a gastrointestinal (GI) radiation oncologist. The predicted results for CTV in 35 patients and organs at risk (OAR) in six patients were scored by the GI radiation oncologist using a five-point Likert scale. For auto-planning, a RapidPlan knowledge-based planning solution was modeled for VMAT delivery with a prescription of 25 Gy in five fractions. The model was trained and tested on 20 and 34 patients, respectively. The resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists using a five-point Likert scale. Finally, the end-to-end pipeline was evaluated on 16 patients, and the resulting plans were scored by two GI radiation oncologists.

resultsIn 31 of 35 patients, CTV contours were clinically acceptable without necessary modifications. The CTV achieved a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.85 (±0.05) and 95% Hausdorff distance of 15.25 (±5.59) mm. All OAR contours were clinically acceptable without edits, except for large and small bowel which were challenging to differentiate. However, contours for total, large, and small bowel were clinically acceptable. The two physicians accepted 100% and 91% of the auto-plans. For the end-to-end pipeline, the two physicians accepted 88% and 62% of the auto-plans.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the VMAT treatment planning technique for rectal cancer can be automated to generate clinically acceptable and safe plans with minimal human interventions.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectumRetrospective Studiesautomatic contouringautomatic treatment planningrectal cancerrectal radiotherapysegmentationVMAT

Identifiers

PMID38317597
PMCPMC11005975
OpenAlexW4391611734

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.