ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025
Evaluation of MRI anatomy in machine learning predictive models to assess hydrogel spacer benefit for prostate cancer patients.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hydrogel spacers (HS) are designed to minimise the radiation doses to the rectum in prostate cancer radiation therapy (RT) by creating a physical gap between the rectum and the target treatment volume inclusive of the prostate and seminal vesicles (SV). This study aims to determine the feasibility of incorporating diagnostic MRI (dMRI) information in statistical machine learning (SML) models developed with planning CT (pCT) anatomy for dose and rectal toxicity prediction. The SML models aim to support HS insertion decision-making prior to RT planning procedures. Methods: Regions of interest (ROIs) were retrospectively contoured on the pCT and registered dMRI scans for 20 patients. ROI Dice and Hausdorff distance (HD) comparison metrics were calculated. The ROI and patient clinical risk factors (CRFs) variables were inputted into three SML models and then pCT and dMRI-based dose and toxicity model performance compared through confusion matrices, AUC curves, accuracy performance metric results and observed patient outcomes. Results: Average Dice values comparing dMRI and pCT ROIs were 0.81, 0.47 and 0.71 for the prostate, SV, and rectum respectively. Average Hausdorff distances were 2.15, 2.75 and 2.75 mm for the prostate, SV, and rectum respectively. The average accuracy metric across all models was 0.83 when using dMRI ROIs and 0.85 when using pCT ROIs. Conclusion: Differences between pCT and dMRI anatomical ROI variables did not impact SML model performance in this study, demonstrating the feasibility of using dMRI images. Due to the limited sample size further training of the predictive models including dMRI anatomy is recommended.
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.