Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38884004›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024

Clinical evaluation of a deep learning CBCT auto-segmentation software for prostate adaptive radiation therapy.

Lorenzo Radici, Cristina Piva, Valeria Casanova Borca, Domenico Cante, Silvia Ferrario, Marina Paolini, Laura Cabras, Edoardo Petrucci, Pierfrancesco Franco, Maria Rosa La Porta and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Deep learning-based prediction of interfractional anatomic variations in prostate cancer radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Lorenzo RadiciMedical Physics Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Cristina PivaRadiotherapy Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Valeria Casanova BorcaMedical Physics Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Domenico CanteRadiotherapy Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Silvia FerrarioRadiotherapy Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Marina PaoliniRadiotherapy Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Laura CabrasMedical Physics Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Edoardo PetrucciMedical Physics Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Pierfrancesco FrancoDepartment of Translational Sciences (DIMET), University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
Maria Rosa La PortaRadiotherapy Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.
Massimo PasquinoMedical Physics Department, ASL TO4 Ivrea, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Aim of the present study is to characterize a deep learning-based auto-segmentation software (DL) for prostate cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and to evaluate its applicability in clinical adaptive radiation therapy routine. Materials and methods: Ten patients, who received exclusive radiation therapy with definitive intent on the prostate gland and seminal vesicles, were selected. Femoral heads, bladder, rectum, prostate, and seminal vesicles were retrospectively contoured by four different expert radiation oncologists on patients CBCT, acquired during treatment. Consensus contours (CC) were generated starting from these data and compared with those created by DL with different algorithms, trained on CBCT (DL-CBCT) or computed tomography (DL-CT). Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), centre of mass (COM) shift and volume relative variation (VRV) were chosen as comparison metrics. Since no tolerance limit can be defined, results were also compared with the inter-operator variability (IOV), using the same metrics. Results: The best agreement between DL and CC was observed for femoral heads (DSC of 0.96 for both DL-CBCT and DL-CT). Performance worsened for low-contrast soft tissue organs: the worst results were found for seminal vesicles (DSC of 0.70 and 0.59 for DL-CBCT and DL-CT, respectively). The analysis shows that it is appropriate to use algorithms trained on the specific imaging modality. Furthermore, the statistical analysis showed that, for almost all considered structures, there is no significant difference between DL-CBCT and human operator in terms of IOV. Conclusions: The accuracy of DL-CBCT is in accordance with CC; its use in clinical practice is justified by the comparison with the inter-operator variability.

Indexed as

Adaptive RadiotherapyAuto-segmentationCone-Beam Computed TomographyDeep LearningProstate Cancer

Identifiers

PMID38884004
PMCPMC11176659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.