Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41050062›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

A multi-centre evaluation of deep learning based radiotherapy planning for left-sided node-negative breast cancer.

Marlie Besouw, Niels van Acht, Dave van Gruijthuijsen, Thérèse van Nunen, Jorien van der Leer, Maurice van der Sangen, Jacqueline Theuws, Jean-Paul Kleijnen, Antoinette Verbeek-de Kanter, Chrysi Papalazarou and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

13 authors.

Marlie BesouwRadboudumc, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Niels van AchtCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Dave van GruijthuijsenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Thérèse van NunenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jorien van der LeerCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Maurice van der SangenCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jacqueline TheuwsCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jean-Paul KleijnenHaaglanden Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Antoinette Verbeek-de KanterHaaglanden Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Chrysi PapalazarouLeiden University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marcelle ImminkLeiden University Medical Centre, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Roel KierkelsRadiotherapiegroep, Institution for Radiation Oncology, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Coen HurkmansCatharina Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Deep learning based planning (DLP) has the potential to improve consistency and efficiency in radiotherapy treatment planning. However, its clinical applicability remains limited, partly due to the need to translate a predicted dose into a deliverable dose. This study evaluated the generalisability of an institution specific DLP solution across multiple institutions by assessing its performance and developing a standardised translation parameter set. Materials and Methods: Four institutions provided clinical treatment plans of 15 patients with left-sided node-negative breast cancer. Treatment plans delivering 40.05 Gy were generated using a deep learning prediction model trained on data from one institution. External validation was performed using national consensus criteria, by applying the initial parameter settings (InitialMimick) to datasets (n = 45) from three other institutions. A standardised parameter set (GenericMimick) was then developed based on data (n = 12) from all four institutions, whereafter it was evaluated on the remaining 48 patients of the dataset. Results: InitialMimick plans showed higher average dose values in the planning target volume for the D Conclusion: DLP with a standardised translation parameter set demonstrated general applicability across multiple institutions.

Indexed as

Breast cancerDeep learningDose mimickingDose predictionMulticenter validationRadiotherapy planning

Identifiers

PMID41050062
PMCPMC12492285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.