ArticlePloS one2024
Assessment of lymph node area coverage with total marrow irradiation and implementation of total marrow and lymphoid irradiation using automated deep learning-based segmentation.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Preliminary Study on the Auto-Segmentation of Targets and Organs at Risk in Pediatric Total Marrow and Lymphoid Irradiation.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal marrow irradiation (TMI) and total marrow and lymphoid irradiation (TMLI) have the advantages. However, delineating target lesions according to TMI and TMLI plans is labor-intensive and time-consuming. In addition, although the delineation of target lesions between TMI and TMLI differs, the clinical distinction is not clear, and the lymph node (LN) area coverage during TMI remains uncertain. Accordingly, this study calculates the LN area coverage according to the TMI plan. Further, a deep learning-based model for delineating LN areas is trained and evaluated.
methodsWhole-body regional LN areas were manually contoured in patients treated according to a TMI plan. The dose coverage of the delineated LN areas in the TMI plan was estimated. To train the deep learning model for automatic segmentation, additional whole-body computed tomography data were obtained from other patients. The patients and data were divided into training/validation and test groups and models were developed using the "nnU-NET" framework. The trained models were evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), precision, recall, and Hausdorff distance 95 (HD95). The time required to contour and trim predicted results manually using the deep learning model was measured and compared.
resultsThe dose coverage for LN areas by TMI plan had V100% (the percentage of volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose), V95%, and V90% median values of 46.0%, 62.1%, and 73.5%, respectively. The lowest V100% values were identified in the inguinal (14.7%), external iliac (21.8%), and para-aortic (42.8%) LNs. The median values of DSC, precision, recall, and HD95 of the trained model were 0.79, 0.83, 0.76, and 2.63, respectively. The time for manual contouring and simply modified predicted contouring were statistically significantly different.
conclusionsThe dose coverage in the inguinal, external iliac, and para-aortic LN areas was suboptimal when treatment is administered according to the TMI plan. This research demonstrates that the automatic delineation of LN areas using deep learning can facilitate the implementation of TMLI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.