Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055148›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

A general model for head and neck auto-segmentation with patient pre-treatment imaging during adaptive radiation therapy.

Brett Clark, Nicholas Hardcastle, Mathieu Gaudreault, Leigh A Johnston, James C Korte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 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. A deep learning-based automated pipeline for colorectal cancer detection in contrast-enhanced CT images.Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Brett ClarkDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Nicholas HardcastleDepartment of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Mathieu GaudreaultDepartment of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Leigh A JohnstonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
James C KorteDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring head and neck (HN) radiation therapy, patients may undergo anatomical changes due to tumor shrinkage or weight loss. For these patients, adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is required to correct treatment plans and to ensure that the prescribed radiation dose is delivered to the tumor while minimizing dose to the surrounding organs-at-risk (OARs). Patient pre-treatment images and segmentation labels are always available during ART and may be incorporated into deep learning (DL) auto-segmentation models to improve performance on mid-treatment images. PURPOSE: Existing DL methods typically incorporate pre-treatment data during training. In this work, we investigated whether including pre-treatment data at inference time would affect model performance, as inference-time inclusion would eliminate the requirement for costly model retraining for new patient cohorts.

methodsWe developed a general adaptive model (GAM) that included pre-treatment data at inference time through additional input channels. We compared the GAM with a patient-specific model (PSM), which included pre-treatment data during training, a reference model (RM), which did not include pre-treatment data, and a rigid image registration (RIR) method. Models were developed using a large dataset of pre- and mid-treatment computed tomography images and segmentation labels (primary gross tumor volume [GTVp] and 16 OARs) for 110 patients who underwent ART for HN cancer.

resultsThe GAM showed improved performance over the PSM and RM for several structures, with the largest differences in dice similarity coefficient for difficult-to-segment structures: the GTVp (RM: 0.17, PSM: 0.36, GAM: 0.61, RR: 0.65) and left/right brachial plexus (RM: 0.38/0.35, PSM: 0.43/0.43, GAM: 0.49/0.49, RR: 0.36/0.38). The GAM attained similar performance to RR for all structures except the brainstem (GAM: 0.82, RR: 0.74), mandible (GAM: 0.88, RR: 0.68), and spinal cord (GAM: 0.76, RR: 0.51), for which the GAM performed higher.

conclusionThe inclusion of patient pre-treatment images and segmentation labels can improve auto-segmentation performance during HN ART, in particular for structures with high variability or low contrast. Including pre-treatment data at DL model inference time (GAM) may give improvements over standard DL models for the GTVp and several OARs, while eliminating the need for costly model retraining with new patient cohorts. However, rigid registration provides similar performance to adaptive DL models for the GTVp and most OARs.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedAutomationDeep LearningHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray Computedadaptive radiation therapyhead and neckimage segmentation

Identifiers

PMID40055148
PMCPMC12149676

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.