Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39490417›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2025

Knowledge-based planning, multicriteria optimization, and plan scorecards: A winning combination.

Carlos E Cardenas, Rex A Cardan, Joseph Harms, Eric Simiele, Richard A Popple

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Carlos E CardenasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA. Electronic address: cecardenas@uabmc.edu.
Rex A CardanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Joseph HarmsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Eric SimieleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Richard A PoppleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

DEEP SOUTH TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH MENTORED CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMKL2TR003097 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI SAAG, KENNETH G · 2019 to 2023
$5.2M
CTSA K12 Program at the University of Alabama at BirminghamK12TR004769 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Renee A. Heffron, Lucio Miele · 2024 to 2026
$4.8M
NCATS NIH HHS K12 TR004769NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR003097NCI NIH HHS L30 CA242657NCI NIH HHS LRP0000018407
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe ESTRO 2023 Physics Workshop hosted the Fully-Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning (Auto-RTP) Challenge, where participants were provided with CT images from 16 prostate cancer patients (6 prostate only, 6 prostate + nodes, and 4 prostate bed + nodes) across 3 challenge phases with the goal of automatically generating treatment plans with minimal user intervention. Here, we present our team's winning approach developed to swiftly adapt to both different contouring guidelines and treatment prescriptions than those used in our clinic. MATERIALS AND

methodsOur planning pipeline comprises two main components: 1) auto-contouring and 2) auto-planning engines, both internally developed and activated via DICOM operations. The auto-contouring engine employs 3D U-Net models trained on a dataset of 600 prostate cancer patients for normal tissues, 253 cases for pelvic lymph node, and 32 cases for prostate bed. The auto-planning engine, utilizing the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface, automates target volume definition, field geometry, planning parameters, optimization, and dose calculation. RapidPlan models, combined with multicriteria optimization and scorecards defined on challenge scoring criteria, were employed to ensure plans met challenge objectives. We report leaderboard scores (0-100, where 100 is a perfect score) which combine organ-at-risk and target dose-metrics on the provided cases.

resultsOur team secured 1st place across all three challenge phases, achieving leaderboard scores of 79.9, 77.3, and 78.5 outperforming 2nd place scores by margins of 6.4, 0.4, and 2.9 points for each phase, respectively. Highest plan scores were for prostate only cases, with an average score exceeding 90. Upon challenge completion, a "Plan Only" phase was opened where organizers provided contours for planning. Our current score of 90.0 places us at the top of the "Plan Only" leaderboard.

conclusionsOur automated pipeline demonstrates adaptability to diverse guidelines, indicating progress towards fully automated radiotherapy planning. Future studies are needed to assess the clinical acceptability and integration of automatically generated plans.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansMaleOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAutomated planningDeep learningKnowledge-based planningMulticriteria optimizationPlan scorecards

Identifiers

PMID39490417
PMCPMC11663123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.