Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023366›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025

Efficient knowledge-based planning model construction in institutions with limited cases using plan quality metrics.

Yusuke Suzuki, Motoharu Sasaki, Yuji Nakaguchi, Takeshi Kamomae, Yuki Kanazawa, Yuki Tominaga, Soma Sawada, Yuto Yamaji, Hitoshi Ikushima

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Yusuke SuzukiGraduate School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tokushima University, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-Cho, Tokushima, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan.
Motoharu SasakiGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-Cho, Tokushima, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan. msasaki@tokushima-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9561-0287
Yuji NakaguchiToyo-Medic Co. Ltd., 3-8-5 Iidabashi, Chiyoada-Ku, Tokyo, 102-0072, Japan.
Takeshi KamomaeRadioisotope Research Center, Nagoya University, 65 Tsurumai-Cho, Showa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8550, Japan.
Yuki KanazawaFaculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 4-24-1 Kuhonji, Chuo-Ku, Kumamoto, 862-0976, Japan.
Yuki TominagaDepartment of Radiotherapy, Medical Co. Hakuhokai, Osaka Proton Therapy Clinic, 1-27-9 Kasugade-Naka, Konohana-Ku, Osaka, Osaka, 554-0022, Japan.
Soma SawadaGraduate School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tokushima University, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-Cho, Tokushima, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan.
Yuto YamajiGraduate School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tokushima University, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-Cho, Tokushima, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan.
Hitoshi IkushimaGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-Cho, Tokushima, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning often faces challenges in the construction of high-quality RapidPlan models when the number of cases is limited. In the present study, we retrospectively scored 90 VMAT plans using Plan Quality Metrics (PQM) and Adjusted PQM (APQM) and constructed 12 RapidPlan models from various combinations of cases with high and low PQM or APQM scores, each trained on 30 cases. Six representative models were selected for a detailed evaluation, including the P_H model based on the top 30 PQM cases and the AP_H model based on the top 30 APQM cases. All models were tested on ten independent cases that exhibited varying planning difficulties. The overall plan quality was assessed using PQM scores and dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics for targets and organs at risk (OARs). The P_H model demonstrated significantly higher PQM scores than all other models (p < 0.05), with superior consistency and improved OAR sparing. Although the AP_H model performed well, the results were inconsistent. In challenging cases, the P_H model maintained a stable quality and outperformed both manual plans and APQM-based models. These findings indicated that case selection based on the actual clinical plan quality (PQM) is more effective than selection based on theoretical dose distributions (APQM) for building robust RapidPlan models, particularly when data are limited. This method is practical for small institutions and could be further improved by standardizing the PQM-based selection criteria and optimizing priority settings to enhance the generalizability and clinical utility of knowledge-based planning.

Indexed as

Knowledge BasesProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansMaleOrgans at RiskQuality ControlRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective StudiesAPQMPlanIQPQMRapidPlanTreatment planning quality

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.