Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41546659›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026

Evaluation of deep learning-based methods for automatic detection and segmentation of brain metastases in T1-contrast MRI for stereotactic radiosurgery.

Zhifeng Xu, Yuqi Yang, Guanjie Wang, Yi Xue, Xinyang Zhang, Yang Dong, Liming Xu, Qi Wang, Wei Wang, Zhiyong Yuan and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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

11 authors.

Zhifeng XuNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5091-3417
Yuqi YangNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Guanjie WangNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yi XueNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8733-9155
Xinyang ZhangNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yang DongNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8984-4125
Liming XuNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Qi WangNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Wei WangNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Zhiyong YuanNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Sheng HuangNational Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, China.

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2023M732625Natural Science Foundation of China 82403774Tianjin Key Medical Discipline Construction Project TJYXZDXK-3-004BTianjin Municipal Education Commission Research Development Program 2022KJ222
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain metastases (BMs) are manually contoured during stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning, which is both time-consuming and potentially inconsistent. To address these challenges, researchers have been actively developing deep learning-based approaches for the detection and segmentation of BMs. However, a comprehensive comparative analysis of deep learning models across different frameworks remains largely absent in the current literature. This study aimed to evaluate and compare deep learning models based on different frameworks for the detection and segmentation of BMs in T1-contrast MRI. MATERIALS AND

methodsEight deep learning models, based on CNN, Transformer, or Mamba architectures, were trained and validated for the task of detecting and segmenting brain metastatic lesions in T1-contrast MRI. A total of 934 patients were included, with 667 cases from publicly available datasets and 267 cases from our institution, designated for training and testing, respectively. Data were retrospectively collected and organized at our institution, and GTV defined as the total BM tumor volume delineated by the physician at the time of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Additionally, labels in the publicly available dataset were modified under clinician guidance to create a BM GTV that met clinical criteria to improve ground-truth accuracy. A BM was considered detected if the ground-truth contour overlapped with a predicted structure. Sensitivity at both the patient-level (proportion of patients with at least one lesion detected) and lesion-level (proportion of ground-truth lesions detected) were used to evaluate BM detection. Segmentation performance was assessed using several metrics: dice similarity coefficient (DSC), positive predictive value (PPV), surface DSC (sDSC), and Hausdorff distance 95% (HD95). The performance across different BM diameters was also evaluated.

resultsAmong the eight deep learning models, the U-Mamba (Bot) achieved a lesion-level sensitivity of 0.796 (95% CI: 0.779-0.812) for all sizes of BM, which was significantly higher than that of the other models, with a false positive rate of 2.46 ± 4.96 per patient. Further stratification by metastasis diameter, the sensitivity was 0.505 for BMs < 3 mm, 0.797 for BMs between 3 and 6 mm, and 0.885 for BMs between 6 and 9 mm. Moreover, U-Mamba (Enc) demonstrated significantly higher lesion-level segmentation performance, with DSC value of 0.632 ± 0.224. In terms of tumor boundary segmentation, nnU-Netv2 achieved the best performance, with Surface DSC and HD95 values of 0.877 ± 0.149 and 1.770 ± 1.458 mm.

conclusionThe nnU-Netv2 allows precise segmentation of lesion areas in T1-contrast MRI, while U-Mamba provide effective detection of brain metastasis, potentially aiding in treatment planning for SRS.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedConvolutional Neural NetworksHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRetrospective Studiesbrain metastasesdeep‐learning basedsegmentationstereotactic radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID41546659
PMCPMC12811971

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.