Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38495038›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Artificial Intelligence-Based Organ Delineation for Radiation Treatment Planning of Prostate Cancer on Computed Tomography.

Eirini Polymeri, Åse A Johnsson, Olof Enqvist, Johannes Ulén, Niclas Pettersson, Fredrik Nordström, Jon Kindblom, Elin Trägårdh, Lars Edenbrandt, Henrik Kjölhede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

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

10 authors.

Eirini PolymeriDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Åse A JohnssonDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Olof EnqvistDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Region Västra Götaland, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Johannes UlénEigenvision AB, Malmö, Sweden.
Niclas PetterssonDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Fredrik NordströmDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jon KindblomDepartment of Oncology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Elin TrägårdhDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Lars EdenbrandtDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Henrik KjölhedeDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Meticulous manual delineations of the prostate and the surrounding organs at risk are necessary for prostate cancer radiation therapy to avoid side effects to the latter. This process is time consuming and hampered by inter- and intraobserver variability, all of which could be alleviated by artificial intelligence (AI). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of AI compared with manual organ delineations on computed tomography (CT) scans for radiation treatment planning. Methods and Materials: Manual delineations of the prostate, urinary bladder, and rectum of 1530 patients with prostate cancer who received curative radiation therapy from 2006 to 2018 were included. Approximately 50% of those CT scans were used as a training set, 25% as a validation set, and 25% as a test set. Patients with hip prostheses were excluded because of metal artifacts. After training and fine-tuning with the validation set, automated delineations of the prostate and organs at risk were obtained for the test set. Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient, mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance were used to evaluate the agreement between the manual and automated delineations. Results: The median Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient between the manual and AI delineations was 0.82, 0.95, and 0.88 for the prostate, urinary bladder, and rectum, respectively. The median mean surface distance and Hausdorff distance were 1.7 and 9.2 mm for the prostate, 0.7 and 6.7 mm for the urinary bladder, and 1.1 and 13.5 mm for the rectum, respectively. Conclusions: Automated CT-based organ delineation for prostate cancer radiation treatment planning is feasible and shows good agreement with manually performed contouring.

Identifiers

PMID38495038
PMCPMC10943520

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.