ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Volume change of the prostate during moderately hypo-fractionated radiotherapy assessed by artificial intelligence.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical indicators for dose re-optimization in magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Toward Precision Imaging: Commentary on the Predictive Value of T2WI and ADC in Prostate Cancer.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- First Report on the use of Loop-X Image Acquisition Technology for Sacral Neuromodulation.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- CBCT-based Online Adaptive Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Dosimetrical Aspects and Comparison to Non-Adaptive Conventional IGRT.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic quality MRI acquired daily for radiotherapy (RT) planning on an MR-linac allows longitudinal evaluation of the patients' anatomy. This study investigated changes in prostate volume during MR-guided RT. The changes were assessed from manual delineations used clinically for daily online adaptation as well as automated segmentation by artificial intelligence (AI). The consistency and congruity of these two methods were evaluated. Methods: The prostate volumes were extracted from daily planning MRI scans of 45 patients receiving 60 Gy in 20 fractions. These volumes were manually edited during the online adaptive treatment planning workflow. The prostate was re-segmented retrospectively for each fraction by AI with an in-house developed nnU-net, trained on prostate cancer patients. The volume for each fraction was normalized to the volume at the patients' 1st fraction to identify possible time trends. Results: Increased population mean prostate volume was seen both based on manual and automatic segmentation. However, based on manual delineations, the peak volume occurred at the 12th fraction at 106.8% of the initial volume, while based on automatic segmentation, the volume peaked at a mean increase 110.8% by the 5th fraction. Standard deviation of volumes for automated segmentation (5.2%) versus manual delineation (12.7%), and reduced variation between fractions from 3.6% to 2.6% indicate better consistency of the automatic segmentation. Conclusion: Automated segmentation by our locally trained nnU-net was more consistent than manual delineations performed clinically. The population mean increase in prostate volume peaked at 110.8% by the 5th fraction after reduce over the remaining treatment course.
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.