ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Deep learning-powered radiotherapy dose prediction: clinical insights from 622 patients across multiple sites tumor at a single institution.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of artificial intelligence for brain tumor segmentation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Decoding cancer with artificial intelligence: Transforming research, diagnosis, and therapy with future insights.Translational oncology · 2026Review
- AI-assisted VMAT planning incorporating deep learning-based dose prediction for head and neck cancer: feasibility of quality standardization and human intervention for irregular cases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- End-to-end deep learning pipeline for automated IMRT planning in lymphoma: Feasibility and limitations.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- The complementary roles of oversight, education, and collaboration in the responsible integration of artificial intelligence in radiation medicine: White paper of CADRA.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- Assessment of rotational dose perturbations in SBRT: A radiomic-dosiomic predictive model based on the structural similarity index measure.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Deep-Learning-Based 3D Dose Distribution Prediction for VMAT Lung Cancer Treatment Using an Enhanced UNet3D Architecture with Composite Loss Functions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated fluence optimization in breast cancer radiotherapy: balancing dosimetric quality, organ-at-risk sparing, and workflow efficiency.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reducing low-dose exposure in helical TomoTherapy for locally advanced left-sided breast cancer with a deformable image registration-based dose-mimicking workflow.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Ovarian dose prediction after ovarian transposition in cervical cancer: comparing three models and the impact of geometric distance on predictive performance.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Contralateral breast cancer after radiotherapy and hormone therapy in two cohorts of US breast cancer survivors.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- A dual-layer quality assurance approach leveraging dose prediction for efficient review of automated contours of organs at risk in the brain in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in medical imaging for tumor diagnosis and treatment: a comprehensive approach.Discover oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccurate pre-treatment dose prediction is essential for efficient radiotherapy planning. Although deep learning models have advanced automated dose distribution, comprehensive multi-tumor analyses remain scarce. This study assesses deep learning models for dose prediction across diverse tumor types, combining objective and subjective evaluation methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included 622 patients with planning data across various tumor sites: nasopharyngeal carcinoma (n = 29), esophageal carcinoma (n = 82), left-sided breast carcinoma (n = 107), right-sided breast carcinoma (n = 95), cervical carcinoma treated with radical radiotherapy (n = 84), postoperative cervical carcinoma (n = 122), and rectal carcinoma (n = 103). Dose predictions were generated using U-Net, Flex-Net, and Highres-Net models, with data split into training (60%), validation (20%), and testing (20%) sets. Quantitative comparisons used normalized dose difference (NDD) and dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics, and qualitative assessments by radiation oncologists were performed on the testing set.
resultsPredicted and clinical doses correlated well, with NDD values under 3% for tumor targets in nasopharyngeal, breast, and postoperative cervical cancer. Qualitative assessments revealed that U-Net, Flex-Net, and Highres-Net achieved the highest accuracy in cervical radical, breast/rectal/postoperative cervical, and nasopharyngeal/esophageal cancers, respectively. Among the test cases (n = 123), 53.7% were deemed clinically acceptable and 32.5% required minor adjustments. The "Best Selection" approach, combining strengths of all three models, raised clinical acceptance to 62.6%.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that automated dose prediction can provide a robust starting point for rapid plan generation. Leveraging model-specific strengths through the "Best Selection" approach enhances prediction accuracy and shows potential to improve clinical efficiency across multiple tumor types.
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.