ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Evaluating automatically generated normal tissue contours for safe use in head and neck and cervical cancer treatment planning.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-anatomical evaluation of a deep-learning auto-contouring system: qualitative, geometric, and dosimetric validation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Evaluating automatically generated normal tissue contours for safe use in head and neck and cervical cancer treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVolumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a widely accepted treatment method for head and neck (HN) and cervical cancers; however, creating contours and plan optimization for VMAT plans is a time-consuming process. Our group has created an automated treatment planning tool, the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), that uses deep learning models to generate organs at risk (OARs), planning structures and automates plan optimization. This study quantitatively evaluates the quality of contours generated by the RPA tool.
methodsFor patients with HN (54) and cervical (39) cancers, we retrospectively generated autoplans using the RPA. Autoplans were generated using deep-learning and RapidPlan models developed in-house. The autoplans were, then, applied to the original, physician-drawn contours, which were used as a ground truth (GT) to compare with the autocontours (RPA). Using a "two one-sided tests" (TOST) procedure, we evaluated whether the autocontour normal tissue dose was equivalent to that of the ground truth by a margin, δ, that we determined based on clinical judgement. We also calculated the number of plans that met established clinically accepted dosimetric criteria.
resultsFor HN plans, 91.8% and 91.7% of structures met dosimetric criteria for automatic and manual contours, respectively; for cervical plans, 95.6% and 95.7% of structures met dosimetric criteria for automatic and manual contours, respectively. Autocontours were equivalent to the ground truth for 71% and 75% of common DVH metrics for the HN and cervix, respectively.
conclusionsThis study shows that dosimetrically equivalent normal tissue contours can be created for HN and cervical cancers using deep learning techniques. In general, differences between the contours did not affect the passing or failing of clinical dose tolerances.
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.