Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40181755›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

An isodose-constrained automatic treatment planning strategy using a multicriteria predicted dose rating.

Zihan Sun, Jiazhou Wang, Weigang Hu, Yongheng Yan, Yuanhua Chen, Guorong Yao, Zhongjie Lu, Senxiang Yan

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Zihan SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Jiazhou WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Weigang HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Yongheng YanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Yuanhua ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Guorong YaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Zhongjie LuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Senxiang YanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious knowledge-based planning studies have demonstrated the feasibility of predicting three-dimensional photon dose distributions and subsequently generating treatment plans. The steepness of dose fall-off represents a critical metric for clinical plan evaluation; however, dose fall-off similarity is frequently overlooked in dose prediction tasks. Our study introduces a novel automatic treatment planning methodology that specifically focuses on dose fall-off reconstruction for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PURPOSE: Our study aims to establish an innovative methodology for automatic treatment plan generation that leverages dose fall-off information derived from deep learning-predicted dose distributions. Additionally, we propose and validate a comprehensive multicriteria rating strategy for dose prediction.

methodsWe incorporated 120 nasopharyngeal cancer cases in this study, distributing them into training (n = 90), validation (n = 10), and testing (n = 20) cohorts. Three distinct dose prediction models were trained: U-Net, DoseNet, and Transformer. To determine the optimal dose prediction model, we developed a comprehensive multicriteria rating strategy that integrates mean absolute error, dose-volume histogram analysis, and isodose dice similarity coefficients. Based on these predictions, we implemented two automatic planning approaches: (1) IsoPlans, which extracts isodose lines from the predicted dose distribution to generate radiotherapy contours as optimization objectives and (2) DVH-IsoPlans, which enhances the first strategy by incorporating additional dose-volume constraints to further optimize treatment planning parameters.

resultsThe multicriteria scores for the three dose prediction models (U-Net, DoseNet, and Transformer) were 0.85, 0.84, and 0.82, respectively. The dose prediction model achieved a minimum mean absolute error of 2.71 Gy. In our clinical validation, 4 of the 20 generated IsoPlans failed to meet clinical requirements, whereas all 20 DVH-IsoPlans successfully satisfied clinical requirements. The mean plan optimization time for the 20 test cases was significantly reduced from 870 to 560 s for IsoPlans and to 470 s for DVH-IsoPlans, representing a substantial reduction of 37.5% and 50.5%, respectively.

conclusionsIn this study, a multicriteria rating strategy is proposed which combines pixel-wise numerical evaluation, clinical parameter evaluation and physical dose fall-off evaluation in order to rate the dose prediction models. Moreover, an automated planning workflow has been developed, enabling the rapid generation of treatment plans based on the isodose structures of the predicted dose. A self-consistent dose prediction to automatic planning scheme based on isodose lines is proposed, which significantly reduces the time required for plan optimization.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAutomationDeep LearningHumansNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsRadiotherapy Dosageautomatic treatment planningdose predictionmulticriteria rating

Identifiers

PMID40181755
PMCPMC12149681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.