Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39759485›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Pro-active risk analysis of an in-house developed deep learning based autoplanning tool for breast Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

Liesbeth Vandewinckele, Chahrazad Benazzouz, Laurence Delombaerde, Laure Pape, Truus Reynders, Aline Van der Vorst, Dylan Callens, Jan Verstraete, Adinda Baeten, Caroline Weltens and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Liesbeth VandewinckeleDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Chahrazad BenazzouzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Belgium.
Laurence DelombaerdeDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Laure PapeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Belgium.
Truus ReyndersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Belgium.
Aline Van der VorstDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Dylan CallensDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Jan VerstraeteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Belgium.
Adinda BaetenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Belgium.
Caroline WeltensDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Wouter CrijnsDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: With the increasing amount of in-house created deep learning models in radiotherapy, it is important to know how to minimise the risks associated with the local clinical implementation prior to clinical use. The goal of this study is to give an example of how to identify the risks and find mitigation strategies to reduce these risks in an implemented workflow containing a deep learning based planning tool for breast Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy. Materials and Methods: The deep learning model ran on a private Google Cloud environment for adequate computational capacity and was integrated into a workflow that could be initiated within the clinical Treatment Planning System (TPS). A proactive Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) was conducted by a multidisciplinary team, including physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, technologists, quality managers, and the research and development team. Failure modes categorised as 'Not acceptable' and 'Tolerable' on the risk matrix were further examined to find mitigation strategies. Results: In total, 39 failure modes were defined for the total workflow, divided over four steps. Of these, 33 were deemed 'Acceptable', five 'Tolerable', and one 'Not acceptable'. Mitigation strategies, such as a case-specific Quality Assurance report, additional scripted checks and properties, a pop-up window, and time stamp analysis, reduced the failure modes to two 'Tolerable' and none in the 'Not acceptable' region. Conclusions: The pro-active risk analysis revealed possible risks in the implemented workflow and led to the implementation of mitigation strategies that decreased the risk scores for safer clinical use.

Indexed as

Automated breast planningDeep learningFMEAIn-house toolRisk analysis

Identifiers

PMID39759485
PMCPMC11697787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.