Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39699058›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

An automated treatment planning portfolio for whole breast radiotherapy.

Hana Baroudi, Leonard Che Fru, Deborah Schofield, Dominique L Roniger, Callistus Nguyen, Donald Hancock, Christine Chung, Beth M Beadle, Kent A Gifford, Tucker Netherton and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

23 authors.

Hana BaroudiThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Leonard Che FruDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Deborah SchofieldDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Dominique L RonigerDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Callistus NguyenDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Donald HancockDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Christine ChungDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Beth M BeadleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Kent A GiffordDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Tucker NethertonDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Joshua S NiedzielskiDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Adam MelanconDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Manickam MuruganandhamDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Meena KhanDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Simona F ShaitelmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sanjay SheteThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Patricia MurinaDepartment of Medical Physics, Instituto Zunino Cancer Treatment Center, Cordoba, Argentina.
Daniel VenenciaDepartment of Medical Physics, Instituto Zunino Cancer Treatment Center, Cordoba, Argentina.
Sheeba ThengumpallilDepartment of Radiotherapy, Hirslanden Clinique des Grangettes, Chêne-Bougeries, Switzerland.
Conny VrielingDepartment of Radiotherapy, Hirslanden Clinique des Grangettes, Chêne-Bougeries, Switzerland.
Joy ZhangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Melissa P MitchellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Laurence E CourtThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Varian Medical Systems
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomation in radiotherapy presents a promising solution to the increasing cancer burden and workforce shortages. However, existing automated methods for breast radiotherapy lack a comprehensive, end-to-end solution that meets varying standards of care. PURPOSE: This study aims to develop a complete portfolio of automated radiotherapy treatment planning for intact breasts, tailored to individual patient factors, clinical approaches, and available resources.

methodsWe developed five automated conventional treatment approaches and utilized an established RapidPlan model for volumetric arc therapy. These approaches include conventional tangents for whole breast treatment, two variants for supraclavicular nodes (SCLV) treatment with/without axillary nodes, and two options for comprehensive regional lymph nodes treatment. The latter consists of wide tangents photon fields with a SCLV field, and a photon tangents field with a matched electron field to treat the internal mammary nodes (IMNs), and a SCLV field. Each approach offers the choice of a single or two isocenter setup (with couch rotation) to accommodate a wide range of patient sizes. All algorithms start by automatically generating contours for breast clinical target volume, regional lymph nodes, and organs at risk using an in-house nnU-net deep learning models. Gantry angles and field shapes are then automatically generated and optimized to ensure target coverage while limiting the dose to nearby organs. The dose is optimized using field weighting for the lymph nodes fields and an automated field-in-field approach for the tangents. These algorithms were integrated into the RayStation treatment planning system and tested for clinical acceptability on 15 internal whole breast patients (150 plans) and 40 external patients from four different institutions in Switzerland, Argentina, Iran, and the USA (360 plans). Evaluation criteria included ensuring adequate coverage of targets and adherence to dose constraints for normal structures. A breast radiation oncologist reviewed the single institution dataset for clinical acceptability (5-point scale) and a physicist evaluated the multi-institutional dataset (use as is or edit).

resultsThe dosimetric evaluation across all datasets (510 plans) showed that 100% of the automated plans met the dose coverage requirements for the breast, 99% for the SCLV, 98% for the axillary nodes, and 91% for the IMN. As expected, hot spots were more prevalent when multiple fields were combined. For the heart, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral breast, automated plans met constraints for 95%, 92%, and 95% of the plans, respectively. Physician evaluation of the 15 internal patients indicated that all automated plans were clinically acceptable with minor edits. Notably, the use of automated contours with the RapidPlan model resulted in plans that were immediately ready for use in 73% of cases (95% confidence interval, 95% CI [51- 96]) of patients, with the remaining cases requiring minor stylistic edits. Similarly, the physicist's review of the 40 multi-institution patients showed that the auto-plans were ready for use 79% (95% CI [73,85]) of the time (95% CI [73,85]), with edits needed for the remaining cases.

conclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility of a comprehensive automated treatment planning model for whole breast radiotherapy, effectively accommodating diverse treatment paradigms.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAutomationFemaleHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy Dosageautomationbreast cancertreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID39699058
PMCPMC11880639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.