ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Automated evaluation of organ sparing in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy using dose-gradient metrics.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Traditional dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics used in radiotherapy plan evaluation lack spatial information and are sensitive to organ volume variations. This study investigated the use of Dose Gradient Curves (DGCs) as a robust, volume-independent alternative for assessing organ sparing in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Materials and methods: Treatment plans of 154 prostate cancer patients were retrospectively analysed. A benchmark set of 20 high-quality plans was established, and average DVH (aDVH) and DGC (aDGC) curves were derived for the bladder and anorectum. Plan quality of the remaining 134 plans was assessed using aDVH, aDGC, and expert-reviewed ground truth. A ΔAUC-based classifier was developed to automatically detect suboptimal organ sparing. The robustness of benchmark set size was evaluated by comparing subsets of five plans with extreme organ volumes. Results: The inclusion of dose-gradient information improved accuracy and precision compared to DVH-based methods. For the bladder, DGC analysis achieved 99% accuracy and precision, compared to 87% and 94% for DVH. For the anorectum, DGC yielded 97% accuracy and 100% precision. The ΔAUC classifier achieved F1 scores of 97.1% (bladder) and 89.7% (anorectum). Reducing the benchmark set to five plans did not significantly affect DGC-based evaluations, unlike DVH-based assessments. Conclusions: DGC-based plan evaluation offers a reliable and volume-independent method for assessing organ sparing in prostate SBRT. It enabled automated detection of suboptimal plans and remained robust even with reduced benchmark sizes. Further investigation prior to clinical implementation is required.
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.