Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40028424›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025

A fully automated machine-learning-based workflow for radiation treatment planning in prostate cancer.

Jan-Hendrik Bolten, David Neugebauer, Christoph Grott, Fabian Weykamp, Jonas Ristau, Stephan Mende, Elisabetta Sandrini, Eva Meixner, Victoria Navarro Aznar, Eric Tonndorf-Martini and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Isotoxic stereotactic reirradiation for recurrent pelvic cancers.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

15 authors.

Jan-Hendrik BoltenKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
David NeugebauerKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Christoph GrottKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Fabian WeykampKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Jonas RistauKlinik für Strahlentherapie und Radiologische Onkologie Kliniken Maria Hilf Mönchengladbach Germany.
Stephan MendeKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Elisabetta SandriniKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Eva MeixnerKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Victoria Navarro AznarUniversitätsklinikum Lozano Blesa de Zaragoza Saragossa Spain.
Eric Tonndorf-MartiniKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Kai SchubertKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Christiane SteidelKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Lars WesselKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Jürgen DebusKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.
Jakob LiermannKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The integration of artificial intelligence into radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer has demonstrated promise in enhancing efficiency and consistency. In this study, we assess the clinical feasibility of a fully automated machine learning (ML)-based "one-click" workflow that combines ML-based segmentation and treatment planning. The proposed workflow was designed to create a clinically acceptable radiotherapy plan within the inter-observer variation of conventional plans. Methods: We evaluated the fully-automated workflow on five low-risk prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy and compared the results with conventional optimized and inverse planned radiotherapy plans based on the contours of six different experienced radiation oncologists. Both qualitative and quantitative metrics were analyzed. Additionally, we evaluated the dose distribution of the ML-based and conventional radiation treatment plans on the different segmentations (manual vs. manual and manual vs. automation). Results: The automatic deep-learning segmentation of the target volume revealed a close agreement between the deep-learning based and expert contours referring to Dice Similarity- and Hausdorff index. However, the deep-learning based CTVs had a significantly smaller volume than the expert CTVs (47.1 cm3 vs. 62.6 cm Conclusion: Our study indicates that the tested fully automated ML-based workflow is clinically feasible and leads to comparable results to conventional radiation treatment plans. This represents a promising step towards efficient and standardized prostate cancer treatment. Nevertheless, in the evaluated cohort, auto segmentation was associated with smaller target volumes compared to manual contours, highlighting the necessity of improving segmentation models and prospective testing of automation in radiation therapy.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAuto segmentation in radiation oncologyFully automated radiation treatment planningInvestigator-dependant variabilityOne-click radiation treatment planningProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40028424
PMCPMC11871478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.