Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39722248›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2025

A prospectively deployed deep learning-enabled automated quality assurance tool for oncological palliative spine radiation therapy.

Christopher E Kehayias, Dennis Bontempi, Sarah Quirk, Scott Friesen, Jeremy Bredfeldt, Tara Kosak, Meghan Kearney, Roy Tishler, Itai Pashtan, Mai Anh Huynh and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Christopher E KehayiasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Dennis BontempiArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, CARIM & GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Sarah QuirkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Scott FriesenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeremy BredfeldtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Tara KosakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Meghan KearneyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Roy TishlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Itai PashtanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Mai Anh HuynhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Hugo J W L AertsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, CARIM & GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Raymond H MakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: rmak@partners.org.
Christian V GuthierDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: christian_guthier@dfci.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalliative spine radiation therapy is prone to treatment at the wrong anatomic level. We developed a fully automated deep learning-based spine-targeting quality assurance system (DL-SpiQA) for detecting treatment at the wrong anatomic level. DL-SpiQA was evaluated based on retrospective testing of spine radiation therapy treatments and prospective clinical deployment.

methodsThe DL-SpiQA workflow involves auto-segmentation and labelling of all vertebral volumes on CT imaging using TotalSegmentator, an open-source deep learning algorithm based on nnU-Net, calculation of the radiation dose to each vertebra, and flagging and categorisation of potential treatments at the wrong anatomic level with automated email reports sent to involved radiation therapy personnel. We developed the DL-SpiQA tool based on retrospective clinical data from patients treated with palliative spine radiation therapy from sites included in the multicentre hospital network between Feb 12, 2014, and Nov 15, 2022. We used historic cases of patients who had a near-miss (ie, wrong-anatomic-level errors caught before the patient was treated) or had received wrong-anatomic-level treatment to test whether the tool could identify known errors successfully. We then used the tool prospectively over 15 months (April 24, 2023, to July 22, 2024) to evaluate any new spine radiation therapy treatment plan created for a patient, looking for any targeting errors, and dose and volume discrepancies. An email report was circulated with all the radiation therapy personnel; if any errors were found, these were highlighted and each error was defined. The tool was internally validated. All cases flagged by DL-SpiQA for both the retrospective and prospective studies were manually reviewed for dosimetric targeting, variant spine anatomy or spinal anomalies, and artificial intelligence (AI) segmentation errors. DL-SpiQA was further validated based on false positive and negative rates estimated from the retrospective results.

findingsDL-SpiQA was first tested retrospectively on 513 patients with segmentation of 10 106 vertebrae. The system raised flags for ten dose discrepancies, 49 normal anatomic variants, 49 cases with implants or other anomalies, and 20 segmentation errors (4% false positive rate). DL-SpiQA caught one historic treatment at the wrong anatomic level and three near-misses. DL-SpiQA was then prospectively deployed, reviewing 520 cases and identifying six documentation errors, which triggered detailed review by clinicians, and 43 additional cases, which confirmed clinical knowledge of variant anatomy. In all detected cases (ie, 49 of 520 cases in total), the appropriate personnel were alerted. A false negative rate of 0·03% is estimated based on the 4% AI segmentation error rate and the frequency of reported spine radiation therapy errors.

interpretationThe low false positive rate, the low false negative rate, and the high accuracy in flagging errors show that DL-SpiQA is an effective, AI-driven, automated quality assurance tool that could be used to identify anatomic spine variants and errors in targeting at the anatomic level. The tool could therefore help improve the safety of spine radiotherapy. Further external validation and tailoring is needed.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

Deep LearningPalliative CareQuality Assurance, Health CareAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesSpinal NeoplasmsSpineTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.