Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42232231›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026

Prospective blinded clinical evaluation of a fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy.

David Neugebauer, Jan-Hendrik Bolten, Hoi H Lau, Stephan Mende, Tilmann Rackwitz, Thomas Held, Christoph Grott, Johanna Rademacher, Fabian Weykamp, Eva Meixner and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

14 authors.

David NeugebauerKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Jan-Hendrik BoltenKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Hoi H LauKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Stephan MendeKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Tilmann RackwitzKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas HeldKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph GrottKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Johanna RademacherKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Fabian WeykampKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Eva MeixnerKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp Hoegen-SassmannshausenKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Jürgen DebusKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian KlüterKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Jakob LiermannKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Fully automated workflows integrating deep learning-based segmentation and treatment planning have shown promising results in research settings but require prospective evaluation under routine clinical conditions. This study assessed the clinical usability of a fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy compared with the conventional clinical workflow. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two consecutively treated patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy were included. For each patient, treatment planning was first performed according to the conventional workflow, followed by execution of a fully automated workflow combining deep learning-based segmentation and planning models within a commercial treatment planning system. Plans and structure sets were evaluated in a blinded, standardized manner by board-certified radiation oncologists and rated as "good", "acceptable", or "unacceptable". The preferred plan was selected for treatment. Processing times were recorded. Results: Clinically acceptable results were achieved in 86% of fully automated cases compared with 95% in the conventional workflow. Conventional plans were rated more frequently as "good" (17/22 vs 12/22), mainly due to differences in target delineation. Fully automated clinical target volumes were consistently smaller (median 54.2 cm Conclusions: A fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy substantially reduces workload and processing time while achieving a high rate of clinical acceptability. Implementation as a draft-first approach with mandatory physician review appears feasible, although refinement of automated target delineation is warranted.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAuto-contouringAutomationAuto-planningImage-Guided radiotherapyProstate CancerTreatment planningVMAT

Identifiers

PMID42232231
PMCPMC13224377

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.