ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and clinical deployment of an automated planning tool for prostate only and male whole pelvis plans based on multi-criteria optimization.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Multicenter study on the versatility and adoption of AI-driven automated radiotherapy planning across cancer types.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Dose differences between patients treated with MR-only, CT-only, or MR-CT fusion radiotherapy for prostate cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Uninvolved liver dose prediction in stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver cancer based on the neural network method.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of RapidPlan in Combination with Multicriteria Optimization for Cervix Radiotherapy Planning.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent automated planning solutions are calibrated using trial and error or machine learning on historical datasets. Neither method allows for the intuitive exploration of differing trade-off options during calibration, which may aid in ensuring automated solutions align with clinical preference. Pareto navigation provides this functionality and offers a potential calibration alternative. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated radiotherapy planning solution with a novel multi-dimensional Pareto navigation calibration interface across two external institutions for prostate cancer.
methodsThe implemented 'Pareto Guided Automated Planning' (PGAP) methodology was developed in RayStation using scripting and consisted of a Pareto navigation calibration interface built upon a 'Protocol Based Automatic Iterative Optimisation' planning framework. 30 previous patients were randomly selected by each institution (I
resultsPGAP led to marked improvements across the majority of rectal dose metrics, with D
conclusionsPGAP enabled intuitive adaptation of automated protocols to an institution's planning aims and yielded plans more congruent with the institution's clinical preference than the locally produced manual clinical plans.
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.