Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064392›Full record

ReviewBJR artificial intelligence2024

Clinical adoption of deep learning target auto-segmentation for radiation therapy: challenges, clinical risks, and mitigation strategies.

Alessia De Biase, Nanna Maria Sijtsema, Tomas Janssen, Coen Hurkmans, Charlotte Brouwer, Peter van Ooijen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJR artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Alessia De BiaseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0455-9795
Nanna Maria SijtsemaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-274X
Tomas JanssenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, 1006 BE, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2807-8670
Coen HurkmansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 5602 ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2268-0492
Charlotte BrouwerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2349-7369
Peter van OoijenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, 9700 RB, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8995-1210

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation therapy is a localized cancer treatment that relies on precise delineation of the target to be treated and healthy tissues to guarantee optimal treatment effect. This step, known as contouring or segmentation, involves identifying both target volumes and organs at risk on imaging modalities like CT, PET, and MRI to guide radiation delivery. Manual segmentation, however, is time-consuming and highly subjective, despite the presence of contouring guidelines. In recent years, automated segmentation methods, particularly deep learning models, have shown promise in addressing this task. However, challenges persist in their clinical use, including the need for robust quality assurance (QA) processes and addressing clinical risks associated with the use of the models. This review examines the challenges and considerations of the clinical adoption of deep learning target auto-segmentation in radiotherapy, focused on the target volume. We discuss potential clinical risks (eg, over- and under-segmentation, automation bias, and appropriate trust), mitigation strategies (eg, human oversight, uncertainty quantification, and education of clinical professionals), and we highlight the importance of expanding QA to include geometric, dose-volume, and outcome-based performance monitoring. While deep learning target auto-segmentation offers significant potential benefits, careful attention to clinical risks and rigorous QA measures are essential for its successful integration in clinical practice.

Indexed as

clinical adoptiondeep learningmonitoringquality assuranceradiation oncologyrisk analysistarget auto-segmentation

Identifiers

PMID42064392
PMCPMC13045716

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.