Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38487718›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Knowledge-based quality assurance of a comprehensive set of organ at risk contours for head and neck radiotherapy.

Jamison Brooks, Erik Tryggestad, Aman Anand, Chris Beltran, Robert Foote, J John Lucido, Nadia N Laack, David Routman, Samir H Patel, Srinivas Seetamsetty and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Jamison BrooksDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
Erik TryggestadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
Aman AnandDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Chris BeltranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, United States.
Robert FooteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
J John LucidoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
Nadia N LaackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
David RoutmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
Samir H PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Srinivas SeetamsettyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.
Douglas MoseleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Manual review of organ at risk (OAR) contours is crucial for creating safe radiotherapy plans but can be time-consuming and error prone. Statistical and deep learning models show the potential to automatically detect improper contours by identifying outliers using large sets of acceptable data (knowledge-based outlier detection) and may be able to assist human reviewers during review of OAR contours. Methods: This study developed an automated knowledge-based outlier detection method and assessed its ability to detect erroneous contours for all common head and neck (HN) OAR types used clinically at our institution. We utilized 490 accurate CT-based HN structure sets from unique patients, each with forty-two HN OAR contours when anatomically present. The structure sets were distributed as 80% for training, 10% for validation, and 10% for testing. In addition, 190 and 37 simulated contours containing errors were added to the validation and test sets, respectively. Single-contour features, including location, shape, orientation, volume, and CT number, were used to train three single-contour feature models (z-score, Mahalanobis distance [MD], and autoencoder [AE]). Additionally, a novel contour-to-contour relationship (CCR) model was trained using the minimum distance and volumetric overlap between pairs of OAR contours to quantify overlap and separation. Inferences from single-contour feature models were combined with the CCR model inferences and inferences evaluating the number of disconnected parts in a single contour and then compared. Results: In the test dataset, before combination with the CCR model, the area under the curve values were 0.922/0.939/0.939 for the z-score, MD, and AE models respectively for all contours. After combination with CCR model inferences, the z-score, MD, and AE had sensitivities of 0.838/0.892/0.865, specificities of 0.922/0.907/0.887, and balanced accuracies (BA) of 0.880/0.900/0.876 respectively. In the validation dataset, with similar overall performance and no signs of overfitting, model performance for individual OAR types was assessed. The combined AE model demonstrated minimum, median, and maximum BAs of 0.729, 0.908, and 0.980 across OAR types. Discussion: Our novel knowledge-based method combines models utilizing single-contour and CCR features to effectively detect erroneous OAR contours across a comprehensive set of 42 clinically used OAR types for HN radiotherapy.

Indexed as

automationcontour reviewoutlier detectionquality assuranceradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38487718
PMCPMC10937434

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.