ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Automated segmentation of target volumes in breast cancer radiotherapy, impact on target size and dose to organs at risk.
Article in Clinical and translational 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Target volume delineation is crucial in breast cancer radiotherapy planning but involves significant interobserver variability. Deep learning (DL) models may reduce this variability, saving time and costs. However, current DL-models do not consider clinical data, such as tumor location and patient comorbidity, to adjust the target and reduce dose to organs at risk (OAR). This study compares clinically defined target volumes to those generated by a DL-model in terms of size, geometric overlap, and dose to OAR. Method: For a hypothetical breast cancer patient, we compared target volumes constructed by Swedish radiotherapy clinics and two DL-models, Raystation and MVision. Geometrical overlap was evaluated, as well as the impact of differences in target delineation on dose to OAR. Treatment plans for locoregional vs. breast-only 3D-conformal radiotherapy were generated. Results: CTV-structures for the breast, lymph nodes level I-IV, and internal mammary nodes were available for 10, 11, and 14 centers respectively. Volume of the CTV-breasts varied between 770-890cc, and the total CTV-volumes (breast + lymph nodes) between 875-1003cc. The DL-models did not constitute the largest nor smallest breast or total CTV-volumes, and geometric overlap between structures was relatively good. Evaluating dose to OAR from dose plans based on the respective CTV-volumes for locoregional radiotherapy, this was comparable between the DL-models and the mean of the CTVs generated by the clinics. In radiotherapy of only the breast, the CTV-breasts constructed by the DL-models gave the highest heart doses due to their proximity to the chest wall, affecting field angle choices. No difference was seen in dose to the ipsilateral lung, thyroid gland, or humeral head. Conclusion: DL-models for target delineation have great potential. However, their introduction must be closely monitored since even small differences compared to clinical standards may affect doses to OAR in 3D conformal breast cancer radiotherapy.
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.