ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
Automated contouring and radiotherapy treatment planning of spine metastases using atlas-based auto-segmentation and knowledge-based planning approaches.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectivesSpine metastases are routinely treated with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) where there is no delineation of target volumes (TV) or organs at risk (OAR), or attempt to optimize dose distribution. Automated contouring and treatment planning could facilitate conformal planning of spine metastases in the clinical environment.
methodsAtlas-based auto-segmentation (ABAS) using SmartSegmentation was developed for delineation of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and OAR; knowledge-based planning (KBP) using RapidPlan was developed for conformal volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment planning. Plans produced using this automated approach were compared to the equivalent cEBRT plans.
resultsTV coverage for automated ABAS/KBP conformal treatment plans were superior to cEBRT. The planning target volume (PTV) Dmean = 7.86 ± 0.16 Gy, Dmin = 3.46 ± 1.79 Gy, Dmax = 8.56 ± 0.05 Gy compared to PTV Dmean = 7.78 ± 0.24 Gy, Dmin = 1.83 ± 1.08 Gy, Dmax = 10.46 ± 0.41 Gy, with homogeneity index and conformity index 0.236 ± 0.215 and 1.201 ± 0.121, respectively, for ABAS/KBP compared to 0.508 ± 0.137 and 1.789 ± 0.437 for cEBRT. Dose to dose-limiting spinal cord and cauda equina was reduced in ABAS/KBP plans, with Dmax of 7.91 ± 0.16 Gy and 7.94 ± 0.13 Gy, respectively, compared to 8.67 ± 0.13 Gy and 8.90 ± 0.16 Gy for cEBRT.
conclusionsAutomated conformal treatment planning was achievable, with improved sparing of dose-limiting OAR and superior plan quality compared to cEBRT. Automation of the planning process makes this feasible for implementation in the clinical environment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Automated contouring and treatment planning are feasible in the clinical environment using this approach. We describe the first use of ABAS and KBP for radiotherapy treatment of spine metastases that would allow patients to receive conformal as opposed to the widely used approach of cEBRT.
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.