ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Landmark-based auto-contouring of clinical target volumes for radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Landmark-based auto-contouring of clinical target volumes for radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer.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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe delineation of clinical target volumes (CTVs) for radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer is complex and varies based on the location and extent of disease. PURPOSE: The current study aimed to develop an auto-contouring solution following one protocol guidelines (NRG-HN001) that can be adjusted to meet other guidelines, such as RTOG-0225 and the 2018 International guidelines.
methodsThe study used 2-channel 3-dimensional U-Net and nnU-Net framework to auto-contour 27 normal structures in the head and neck (H&N) region that are used to define CTVs in the protocol. To define the CTV-Expansion (CTV1 and CTV2) and CTV-Overall (the outer envelope of all the CTV contours), we used adjustable morphological geometric landmarks and mimicked physician interpretation of the protocol rules by partially or fully including select anatomic structures. The results were evaluated quantitatively using the dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean surface distance (MSD) and qualitatively by independent reviews by two H&N radiation oncologists.
resultsThe auto-contouring tool showed high accuracy for nasopharyngeal CTVs. Comparison between auto-contours and clinical contours for 19 patients with cancers of various stages showed a DSC of 0.94 ± 0.02 and MSD of 0.4 ± 0.4 mm for CTV-Expansion and a DSC of 0.83 ± 0.02 and MSD of 2.4 ± 0.5 mm for CTV-Overall. Upon independent review, two H&N physicians found the auto-contours to be usable without edits in 85% and 75% of cases. In 15% of cases, minor edits were required by both physicians. Thus, one physician rated 100% of the auto-contours as usable (use as is, or after minor edits), while the other physician rated 90% as usable. The second physician required major edits in 10% of cases.
conclusionsThe study demonstrates the ability of an auto-contouring tool to reliably delineate nasopharyngeal CTVs based on protocol guidelines. The tool was found to be clinically acceptable by two H&N radiation oncology physicians in at least 90% of the cases.
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.