ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Clinical feasibility of Ethos auto-segmentation for adaptive whole-breast cancer treatment.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do AI-based contouring algorithms influence physicians in the online adaptive radiotherapy of patients with bladder cancer?Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Automatic segmentation of clinical target volume for radiation therapy in breast-conserving patients and exploration of clinical factors influential to its performance.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Impact of COVID-19 vaccination on radiation-induced lung injury in breast cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- In-Silico Trial of Same-Day Simulation-Free Spatially Fractionated Adaptive Radiotherapy (SFJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Improving segmentation precision in prostate cancer adaptive radiation therapy with a patient-specific network.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Following a preliminary work validating the technological feasibility of an adaptive workflow with Ethos for whole-breast cancer, this study aims to clinically evaluate the automatic segmentation generated by Ethos. Material and methods: Twenty patients initially treated on a TrueBeam accelerator for different breast cancer indications (right/left, lumpectomy/mastectomy) were replanned using the Ethos Results: The qualitative analysis showed that no correction or only minor corrections were needed for 98.6% of AI-generated contours and 86.7% of the target volumes. Regarding the quantitative analysis, Ethos' contour generation outperformed inter-observer variability for all structures in terms of DSC, HD, sDSC and APL. Target volume coverage was achieved for 97.9%, 96.3%, 94.2% and 68.8% of the breast, IMC, nodes and boost CTVs, respectively. As for OARs, no significant differences in dosimetric parameters were observed. Conclusion: This study shows high accuracy of segmentation performed by Ethos for breast cancer, except for the CTV_Boost. Contouring practices for adaptive sessions were revised following this study to improve outcomes.
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.