ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Clinical evaluation of a deep learning CBCT auto-segmentation software for prostate adaptive radiation therapy.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving deep learning organ segmentation accuracy in cone-beam CT-guided radiotherapy using a robust scatter suppression method.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based prediction of interfractional anatomic variations in prostate cancer radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Review
- Refining imaging parameters for dual-energy cone-beam computed tomography in image-guided radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Comparison between artificial intelligence-based and manual organ delineations in pretreatment computed tomography scans of prostate cancer patients: a visual grading study.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2026Article
- An efficient automated approach for accumulated dose estimation in prostate cancer radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of AI-generated and deformed image registration contours on daily CBCT in prostate cancer radiation therapy: accuracy and dosimetric implications using commercial tools.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Automated target misalignment correction for cone beam computed tomography-based online adaptive radiotherapy of locally advanced lung cancer patients.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Using deep learning generated CBCT contours for online dose assessment of prostate SABR treatments.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based autosegmentation for a high-performance cone-beam computed tomography imaging system in the pelvic region.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Improving segmentation precision in prostate cancer adaptive radiation therapy with a patient-specific network.PloS one · 2025Article
- Comparison of Deep Learning-Based Auto-Segmentation Results on Daily Kilovoltage, Megavoltage, and Cone Beam CT Images in Image-Guided Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.